{"id":381460,"date":"2026-04-18T13:00:31","date_gmt":"2026-04-18T07:30:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=381460"},"modified":"2026-04-18T13:06:49","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T07:36:49","slug":"marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cMARQ\u201d v. \u201cMARC\u201d: Delhi High Court affirms interim injunction in Trade mark dispute involving Flipkart"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> While hearing the present appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (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.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Delhi HC Cracks Down on Unauthorised “The Pioneer” Publication, grants ad interim injunction for Trade mark and Copyright Infringement<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Subsequently, Flipkart had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4<\/a> CPC<\/a> for vacation of the injunction, while Flipkart had pursued its application under Order 39 Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> CPC<\/a>. By the order dated 27 October 2018 (impugned order), the trial court had allowed Flipkart’s application and dismissed Flipkart’s application.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved, Flipkart filed the present appeal.<\/p>\n

Analysis<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Decision<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

[Flipkart India (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Marc Enterprises (P) Ltd.<\/span>, FAO IPD No. 46 of 2021, decided on 10-4-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Appellant:<\/span> Sandeep Sethi, Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocates, Nitin Sharma, Shilpa Gupta, Ranjeet Singh Sidhu, Kuber Mahajan, Naman Tandon, Krisna Gambhir, Shreya Sethi, Advocates.<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Ajay Amitabh Suman, Shravan Kumar Bansal, Rishi Bansal, Deasha Mehta, Aviral Srivastava, Ayushi Arora, Advocates.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Minor differences and addition of house mark cannot outweigh phonetic and structural similarity between competing marks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67539,"featured_media":381473,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[36595,2543,35497,55564,2943,87202,46158,52951],"class_list":["post-381460","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-deceptive-similarity","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-flipkart","tag-house-mark","tag-injunction","tag-justice-tejas-karia","tag-trade-mark-infringement","tag-trade-marks-act-1999"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC upholds injunction against Flipkart in MARQ v MARC trademark dispute | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"MARQ v MARC trademark dispute: Delhi High Court backs prior user, upholds injunction against Flipkart over deceptive similarity\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u201cMARQ\u201d v. \u201cMARC\u201d: Delhi High Court affirms interim injunction in Trade mark dispute involving Flipkart\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"MARQ v MARC trademark dispute: Delhi High Court backs prior user, upholds injunction against Flipkart over deceptive similarity\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-04-18T07:30:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-18T07:36:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/MARQ-v-MARC-trademark.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Prarthana Gupta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u201cMARQ\u201d v. \u201cMARC\u201d: Delhi High Court affirms interim injunction in Trade mark dispute involving Flipkart\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Prarthana Gupta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC upholds injunction against Flipkart in MARQ v MARC trademark dispute | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/MARQ-v-MARC-trademark.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-18T07:30:31+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-18T07:36:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382\"},\"description\":\"MARQ v MARC trademark dispute: Delhi High Court backs prior user, upholds injunction against Flipkart over deceptive similarity\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/MARQ-v-MARC-trademark.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/MARQ-v-MARC-trademark.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"MARQ v MARC trademark\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u201cMARQ\u201d v. \u201cMARC\u201d: Delhi High Court affirms interim injunction in Trade mark dispute involving Flipkart\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382\",\"name\":\"Prarthana Gupta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Prarthana Gupta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/prarthana\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC upholds injunction against Flipkart in MARQ v MARC trademark dispute | SCC Times","description":"MARQ v MARC trademark dispute: Delhi High Court backs prior user, upholds injunction against Flipkart over deceptive similarity","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u201cMARQ\u201d v. \u201cMARC\u201d: Delhi High Court affirms interim injunction in Trade mark dispute involving Flipkart","og_description":"MARQ v MARC trademark dispute: Delhi High Court backs prior user, upholds injunction against Flipkart over deceptive similarity","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-04-18T07:30:31+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-18T07:36:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/MARQ-v-MARC-trademark.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Prarthana Gupta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u201cMARQ\u201d v. \u201cMARC\u201d: Delhi High Court affirms interim injunction in Trade mark dispute involving Flipkart","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Prarthana Gupta","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/","name":"Del HC upholds injunction against Flipkart in MARQ v MARC trademark dispute | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/MARQ-v-MARC-trademark.webp","datePublished":"2026-04-18T07:30:31+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-18T07:36:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382"},"description":"MARQ v MARC trademark dispute: Delhi High Court backs prior user, upholds injunction against Flipkart over deceptive similarity","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/MARQ-v-MARC-trademark.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/MARQ-v-MARC-trademark.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"MARQ v MARC trademark"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/18\/marq-v-marc-trademark-delhi-high-court-injunction-against-flipkart\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u201cMARQ\u201d v. \u201cMARC\u201d: Delhi High Court affirms interim injunction in Trade mark dispute involving Flipkart"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382","name":"Prarthana Gupta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Prarthana Gupta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/prarthana\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/MARQ-v-MARC-trademark.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":368662,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/04\/legal-roundup-ipr-november-2025-copyright-trademark-personality-rights-patent-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":381460,"position":0},"title":"Intellectual Property Rights November 2025: Key IPR rulings of the Month","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"December 4, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Compiling key judgments from High Courts across India, this roundup presents November\u2019s significant developments in copyright, trade mark, trade dress, and personality rights, reflecting evolving trends in IP protection and enforcement.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Intellectual Property Rights November 2025","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-November-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-November-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-November-2025.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-November-2025.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":362536,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/04\/delhi-high-court-grants-interim-injunction-protecting-mankind-pharmas-kind-trade-mark\/","url_meta":{"origin":381460,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court grants interim injunction protecting Mankind Pharma\u2019s \u2018KIND\u2019 trade mark","author":"Editor","date":"October 4, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe identity in the defendant\u2019s marks is so close to Mankind\u2019s trade marks that the two are indistinguishable. The infringing activities of the defendant is likely to cause confusion in the course of trade of Mankind leading to erosion of consumers\u2019 trust.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"protecting Mankind Pharma","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/protecting-Mankind-Pharma.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/protecting-Mankind-Pharma.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/protecting-Mankind-Pharma.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/protecting-Mankind-Pharma.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":279674,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/15\/delhi-high-court-grants-permanent-injunction-to-lifelong-online-retail-p-ltd-for-its-mark-lifelong-in-a-trade-mark-infringement-suit\/","url_meta":{"origin":381460,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to Lifelong Online Retail (P) Ltd for its mark \u2018Lifelong\u2019 in a trade mark infringement suit","author":"Editor","date":"December 15, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court restrained the defendant from dealing in any goods, under the impugned trade mark \u2018Lifelong\u2019 or any other mark as may be identical to or deceptively similar with the plaintiff's (Lifelong Online Retail (P) Ltd.) registered trade mark \u2018Lifelong\u2019, to cause infringement of the plaintiff's trade marks.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":280579,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/29\/delhi-high-court-grants-permanent-injunction-to-rpg-enterprises-ltd-for-its-mark-rpg-in-a-trade-mark-infringement-suit-awards-rs-3-lakhs-as-damages\/","url_meta":{"origin":381460,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to RPG Enterprises Ltd. for its mark \u2018RPG\u2019 in a trade mark infringement suit; awards Rs. 3 lakhs as damages","author":"Editor","date":"December 29, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction to RPG Enterprises Ltd. for its mark \u2018RPG\u2019. Further, RPG Developers (P) Ltd. were restrained from offering\/rendering any services using the impugned trade mark \u2018RPG\u2019 and\/or \u2018RPG DEVELOPERS\u2019 and\/or artistic work which was a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's artistic work or any\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":279621,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/15\/delhi-high-court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-to-sukam-systems-p-ltd-for-its-trade-mark-su-kam-against-lithium-power-energy-p-ltd-in-a-trade-mark-infringement-suit\/","url_meta":{"origin":381460,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court grants ex parte ad interim injunction to Sukam Systems (P) Ltd. for its trade mark \u2018Su-Kam\u2019 against Lithium Power Energy (P) Ltd in a trade mark infringement suit","author":"Editor","date":"December 15, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"In the present case, Sukam Systems (P) Ltd. alleged infringement and passing of by Lithium Power Energy (P) Ltd. of its registered trade marks \u2018Su-Kam\u2019, \u2018BIG conqueror Tubular Battery\u2019 and \u2018BIG Warrior Tubular Battery\u2019.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":365789,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/05\/legal-roundup-ipr-october-2025-copyright-trademark-personality-rights-patent-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":381460,"position":5},"title":"Intellectual Property Rights October 2025: A monthly digest of key IPR developments","author":"Editor","date":"November 5, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Bringing together the most important IPR decisions from High Courts across India, this roundup offers an overview of October\u2019s major developments in copyright, trade mark, and personality rights, along with notable updates from related legal domains.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Intellectual Property Rights October 2025","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-October-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-October-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-October-2025.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-October-2025.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381460","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67539"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=381460"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381460\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":381476,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381460\/revisions\/381476"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/381473"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=381460"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=381460"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=381460"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}