TREV sues Trevel over EV-cab brand as rivals chase ₹22,000-crore market

TREV and Trevel differ by two letters. On September 18, that difference returns to the Delhi High Court as two electric-cab operators fight over who can use the closely named brands while racing to expand their combined fleet of about 200 EVs roughly fivefold and chase a share of Delhi-NCR’s commercial electric-fleet market, estimated to reach ₹18,000–22,000 crore by 2030.

Naveen Gupta’s TREV Mobility has sued Sahil Jindal-led Trevel, operated by Inwisement Technologies, alleging trademark infringement and passing off through its use of the TREVEL name. TREV has sought an interim injunction, but the High Court has not granted one so far.

Nor has the court determined whether Trevel infringed TREV’s trademark or committed passing off. The business race, meanwhile, isn’t waiting for the legal one. Both operators are targeting fleets of roughly 500 vehicles each.

TREV began operations in January 2024, while Trevel entered in December 2025. Both operate premium EVs in Delhi-NCR and target corporate and airport-travel customers. The dispute is registered as CS(COMM) 374/2026. A certified Trade Marks Registry record identifies TREV Mobility as proprietor of the registered “trEV” device mark, No.

6262526 in Class 39, dating from January 16, 2024. TREV also alleges similarities in Trevel’s vehicle branding and trade dress. These remain TREV’s allegations and have not been adjudicated by the High Court. Email sent to Trevel has went unanswered, while HKS Legal representing Trevel too did not provide any response.

On April 10, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela referred the parties to mediation, saying, "In case the mediation talks are not successful, this Court will take up the matter on merits.” On July 27, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani ordered: “Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

Issue summons in the suit.” Inwisement accepted the summons and was given 30 days to file its written statement. On TREV’s separate application seeking an interim injunction, the court ordered, "Issue notice.” Inwisement accepted notice and was allowed two weeks to reply, followed by one week for TREV’s rejoinder.

The order said the matter should be re-notified on September 18. A senior lawyer at Mumbai-based law firm of condition of anonymity , said disputes involving short names turn on whether the shared element is distinctive and whether additions change the overall impression.

“The question is not simply whether one name contains another,” he said. “It is whether the part that has been taken is distinctive of the first business and whether what has been added is enough to change the overall impression the later name creates.”