Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Flipkart's 'MARQ' Mark in Trademark Dispute

The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an interim injunction against e-commerce platform Flipkart, finding that its mark “MARQ” used for electrical appliances is phonetically, structurally, and visually similar to Marc Enterprises' registered mark “MARC” and likely to cause confusion among consumers.

A single-judge bench of Justice Tejas Karia held that the order of the trial court did not suffer from any arbitrariness or perversity and therefore warranted no interference. The Court observed:

“At this prima facie stage and considering the settled law laid down in Wander Ltd. (supra) and Mohd. Mehtab Khan (supra), there is no justification for diverging from the conclusions reached by the learned Trial Court in the Impugned Order. The Impugned Order exhibits no manifest error, nor does the Trial Court's evaluation of the facts and legal principles present any irregularity. Accordingly, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, it is not expedient to re-examine the sufficiency of evidence considered by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, the Appellant has failed to show any arbitrariness or perversity with the Impugned Order and, accordingly, the Appeal is without any merit.”

Marc Enterprises has been manufacturing and selling electrical accessories and appliances under the mark “MARC” since 1981 and has held registrations for the mark since 1984. Flipkart, apart from operating as an e-commerce platform hosting third-party sellers, also manufactures and sells products under its own marks.

The dispute arose in 2017 when Flipkart adopted the mark “MARQ” for large electronic appliances such as televisions, microwave ovens, and washing machines. Marc Enterprises filed a suit seeking an injunction against Flipkart for infringement, passing off and related relief.

The trial court granted an ad interim injunction restraining Flipkart from using the impugned mark. The injunction was subsequently modified in appellate proceedings to allow Flipkart time-bound clearance of existing stock. Flipkart's application to vacate the injunction was later dismissed, leading to the present appeal.

Flipkart argued that the mark was honestly adopted to signify its brand philosophy of a “mark of quality” and had always been used along with its house mark “Flipkart”. It contended that “MARQ” is pronounced as “Mar Queue”, with the letter “Q” denoting quality, and that the competing marks were structurally, visually and conceptually dissimilar.

It also argued that its products were sold online through its platform, reducing the likelihood of confusion, and that the terms “Marc”, “Mark” or “Mar” are common to trade.

Marc Enterprises, on the other hand, argued that the marks are phonetically identical and deceptively similar. It emphasised its status as prior user and registered proprietor, and contended that both parties deal in similar goods sold through overlapping trade channels. It also argued that online sales do not eliminate confusion, particularly when both products are available on the same platform.

Rejecting Flipkart's contentions, the Court held that the rival marks are phonetically, structurally and visually similar, and such similarity is sufficient to establish the likelihood of confusion. It noted that phonetic similarity remains relevant even in the context of e-commerce, observing:

“Where the distinctive elements of a registered trade mark consist of or include words, the trade mark may be infringed by the phonetic similarity of those words as well as by their visual representation. As such, the use of the word 'MARQ', which is phonetically, structurally, and visually similar to 'MARC', would also be an act of infringement.”

The court further held that the mere addition of a house mark does not distinguish competing marks where the dominant element remains similar and that the use of “Flipkart” alongside “MARQ” is insufficient to dispel confusion.

On the plea that the mark is common to trade, the court observed:

“Further, common to register does not prove common to trade. Various marks containing the word 'Marc', 'Mark', or 'Mar' have been applied for or are pending before the Trade Marks Registry does not prove that they are in use.”

Addressing Flipkart's reliance on subsequent registrations such as “Flipkart MarQ” and “MarQ by Flipkart”, the Court held that such registrations, obtained after the impugned order, do not affect the present appeal or the injunction granted.

Finding no merit in the appeal, the court upheld the injunction restraining Flipkart from using the impugned mark.

The court, however, granted Flipkart time till May 15, 2026, to comply with the injunction and withdraw or exhaust existing stock.

For Appellant: Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, with Advocates Nitin Sharma, Shilpa Gupta, Ranjeet Singh Sidhu, Kuber Mahajan, Naman Tandon, Krisna Gambhir, and Shreya Sethi.

For Respondent: Advocates Ajay Amitabh Suman, Shravan Kumar Bansal, Rishi Bansal, Deasha Mehta, Aviral Srivastava, and Ayushi Arora.