'MARQ' Deceptively Similar To 'MARC': Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Flipkart

Marc Enterprises, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling electrical accessories, fittings, appliances, and equipment, was the plaintiff/respondent. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd., an e-commerce platform and seller of large appliances, was the defendant/appellant.

The respondent instituted a suit before the Patiala House Courts seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its registered trademark “MARC”, along with passing off and related reliefs.

Flipkart contested the suit on multiple grounds, inter alia, that: the marks “MARQ” and “MARC” are visually and phonetically distinct; the use of its house mark “FLIPKART” alongside “MARQ” eliminates any likelihood of confusion; and the goods offered by the parties are different.

By judgment dated 27.10.2018, the Learned Trial Court allowed the interim injunction application filed by Marc Enterprises, restraining Flipkart from using the impugned mark. This order was challenged in the present appeal. The operation of the impugned order was stayed on 12.11.2018 during the pendency of the appeal.

The High Court, presided over by Justice Tejas Karia, reiterated that the scope of interference in an appeal against an interim injunction is limited, and such interference is warranted only where the order is perverse or contrary to settled legal principles.

On merits, the Court upheld the Trial Court's findings and held that the marks “MARC” and “MARQ” are phonetically, structurally, and visually similar, and likely to cause confusion among consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.

The Court rejected Flipkart's contention regarding the mitigating effect of its house mark “FLIPKART,” noting that:

· the word “Flipkart” was used in a comparatively small font vis-à-vis “MARQ”; and

· in several instances, “MARQ” was used as a standalone mark on products.

The Court also dismissed Flipkart's argument that “MARC” is common to trade, drawing a distinction between a mark being common to trade and common to the register.

It further held that the goods of the parties are allied and cognate, and are sold through common trade channels, including the appellant's own platform, thereby increasing the likelihood of confusion.

The Court additionally noted that the injunction is justified not only on the ground of infringement but also on passing off, in view of the respondent's prior use, goodwill, and reputation.

Flipkart's reliance on subsequent registrations of “Flipkart MarQ” and “MarQ by Flipkart” was rejected, with the Court holding that such registrations do not affect the present proceedings or the injunction granted.

Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Mohd. Mehtab Khan v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., the Court found no perversity or infirmity in the impugned order of the Trial Court.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the interim injunction restraining the use of the trademark “MARQ” stands revived. However, considering that the operation of the impugned order had remained stayed during the pendency of the appeal, Flipkart was granted time until 15.05.2026 to comply with the said order.

The Court clarified that the observations made are prima facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present appeal.

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

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

Case Name: Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. v. Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: FAO-IPD 46/2021

Click here to read/download Order