Delhi High Court: While hearing the present appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) in MARQ v MARC trademark dispute, seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of the trade mark “MARC”, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J., held that the respondent was the prior user of the inherently distinctive mark “MARC” and that Flipkart’s mark “MARQ” was deceptively similar, giving rise to a likelihood of confusion and that the addition of Flipkart’s house mark was insufficient to distinguish the competing marks.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Background
The respondent was engaged in the manufacture and sale of electrical goods and appliances. The appellant, Flipkart operates an e-commerce platform facilitating sales by third parties and also sells products under its own marks. The dispute arose from Flipkart’s use of the marks “MARQ”, 
and a device mark in relation to goods allied to those of the respondent.
On 18 January 2018, the trial court had granted an ad interim injunction restraining Flipkart from using the impugned marks. Flipkart challenged this order before the Court, which vide order dated 22 January 2018, permitted Flipkart to clear existing stock until 30 January 2018.
Subsequently, Flipkart had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the injunction, while Flipkart had pursued its application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. By the order dated 27 October 2018 (impugned order), the trial court had allowed Flipkart’s application and dismissed Flipkart’s application.
Aggrieved, Flipkart filed the present appeal.
Analysis
The Court noted that the respondent was the prior user of the mark “MARC”, claiming use since 1981 with registration obtained in 1984, whereas Flipkart had adopted the impugned marks “MARQ” and a device mark only in 2017 for allied electronic goods. The respondent’s mark was found to be a coined and inherently distinctive term, duly covering the goods in question.
While comparing the two marks, the Court observed that the competing marks were deceptively similar. “MARC” and “MARQ” were phonetically, structurally, and visually alike, and an average consumer of imperfect recollection was likely to be confused. Applying the anti-dissection rule, the marks were required to be considered as a whole, leading to the conclusion that the similarity was sufficient to cause confusion. The Court emphasised that phonetic similarity alone could constitute infringement, even where goods were sold through an e-commerce platform.
Flipkart’s reliance on the use of its house mark “Flipkart” alongside the impugned marks was rejected. The Court held that the addition of a house mark did not obviate confusion, particularly where it was used inconspicuously or inconsistently. Flipkart had failed to demonstrate that such addition sufficiently distinguished its goods from those of the respondent.
The Court further observed that the presence of similar marks on the trade marks register did not establish their use in trade and thus did not aid Flipkart’s case. It reiterated that trade mark law seeks to prevent consumer confusion, and that similarity must be assessed in the context of market realities, including trade channels and consumer base. In the present case, both parties’ goods were allied and cognate, sold through identical trade channels, and targeted at overlapping consumer groups, thereby increasing the likelihood of confusion.
Decision
The Court found no manifest error, arbitrariness, or perversity in the trial court’s reasoning and declined to interfere in appellate jurisdiction. It held that Flipkart had failed to make out any case warranting interference with the impugned order. The Court, however, granted time to Flipkart till 15 May 2026 to comply with the interim injunction.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld. The interim stay granted on 12 November 2018 was vacated. The Court further clarified that its observations were prima facie in nature and confined to the disposal of the appeal.
[Flipkart India (P) Ltd. v. Marc Enterprises (P) Ltd., FAO IPD No. 46 of 2021, decided on 10-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Sandeep Sethi, Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocates, Nitin Sharma, Shilpa Gupta, Ranjeet Singh Sidhu, Kuber Mahajan, Naman Tandon, Krisna Gambhir, Shreya Sethi, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ajay Amitabh Suman, Shravan Kumar Bansal, Rishi Bansal, Deasha Mehta, Aviral Srivastava, Ayushi Arora, Advocates.
