Hero Electric Vehicles v. Lectro E-Mobility (2021)

Quick Summary

The Delhi High Court sent this trademark dispute to arbitration. The Court said: look at the core of the dispute. Here, the fight was mainly contractual—who can use the “Hero” name for electric bicycles—so arbitration applies. Any trademark questions are secondary.

• Main point: IP issues can be arbitrable if the heart of the dispute is private and contractual.
• Test: Vidya Drolia — refer to arbitration unless non-arbitrability is obvious like “chalk and cheese”.

Issues

1. Can disputes touching Intellectual Property Rights be resolved by arbitration?
2. How do we decide if a dispute is fit for arbitration or must go to court?

Rules

• Subject-matter arbitrability: Decide which disputes are for private tribunals and which are reserved for courts.
• Vidya Drolia principle: If a valid arbitration agreement exists, refer the dispute to arbitration unless non-arbitrability is clear on the face of it.
• Sections 8 & 11 (Arbitration Act): Judicial screening is limited; the tribunal can decide its own jurisdiction (kompetenz-kompetenz).

Arguments

Judgment

The Delhi High Court held that the dispute is arbitrable. It arises from private contracts (FSA and TMNA) between family groups. Even if trademark questions appear, they are supplementary to the main contractual question. The Court therefore referred the parties to arbitration, applying the Vidya Drolia approach.

Ratio

• Core-dispute test: If the core is contractual (in personam), the matter is generally fit for arbitration.
• Vidya Drolia filter: Courts must refer unless non-arbitrability is obvious.
• Statutory overlap: Trademark issues do not bar arbitration when they are incidental to contract allocation.

Why It Matters

This case is a student-friendly example of how Indian courts treat IP disputes under arbitration clauses. It shows that parties can resolve private trademark allocation fights before an arbitral tribunal, keeping only pure public-law questions with courts.

Key Takeaways

• Arbitrability turns on the nature of the right: in personam vs. in rem.
• Valid arbitration clause + contractual core → refer to arbitration.
• Trademark law issues can be decided incidentally by the tribunal.
• Courts at Sections 8/11 stage do a limited check only.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “CORE ARB, MARKS SECOND”

1. Core: Identify if the dispute is mainly contractual.
2. Arb: Check the arbitration clauses (FSA/TMNA).
3. Marks Second: Treat trademark issues as incidental if private.

IRAC Outline

Glossary

Arbitrability

Whether a type of dispute can be decided by an arbitral tribunal.

In personam

Rights between private parties; generally arbitrable.

In rem

Rights against the world; usually for courts only.

Kompetenz-Kompetenz

Tribunal’s power to rule on its own jurisdiction.

FAQs

Related Cases