Synopsis

The respondent (Marc Enterprises) filed a suit for infringement and passing off against Flipkart, alleging that Flipkart’s use of the marks ‘MARQ’ and ‘marq’ for large appliances (televisions, washing machines, microwave ovens) was deceptively similar to its registered mark ‘MARC’ used for electrical accessories and appliances since 1981. The trial court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Flipkart from using the impugned marks. Flipkart appealed. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the marks ‘MARC’ and ‘MARQ’ are phonetically, visually and structurally similar; that the respondent is the prior user and registered proprietor; that the goods are allied and cognate; and that there is a likelihood of confusion among consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. The court reaffirmed the limited scope of appellate interference with interim injunction orders and refused to accept Flipkart’s arguments regarding phonetic distinction, use of house mark ‘Flipkart’, or commonness of the word ‘Marc’ on the register.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Tejas Karia

Date of Judgment: 10th April 2026

Citation: 2026:DHC:3004 (FAO-IPD 46/2021)

Core Law: Trade Marks Act, 1999; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order 39 Rules 1, 2 & 4, Order 43 Rule 1(r))

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Sections 28 (rights conferred by registration), 29 (infringement), 30 (limits of effect of registered trade mark)

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 (temporary injunctions), Order 39 Rule 4 (vacation of injunction), Order 43 Rule 1(r) (appeals against orders under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 39)

Key legal principles applied

• Likelihood of confusion test: The test for infringement is whether the competing marks are deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. Phonetic, visual and structural similarity are all relevant.

• Prior user and registration prevails: The respondent was the prior user (since 1981) and prior registered proprietor (since 1984) of the mark ‘MARC’. Flipkart adopted ‘MARQ’ in 2017. Prior rights give the respondent a stronger claim.

• Allied and cognate goods: Even if the specific goods are not identical, if they are allied, cognate, or sold through common trade channels, there is a likelihood of confusion. Both parties sell electrical/electronic appliances through online and offline channels.

• House mark does not negate confusion: Mere addition of a house mark (e.g., ‘Flipkart’ before ‘MARQ’) does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion if the dominant part of the mark is similar. The consumer may not remember the house mark distinctly.

• Common to register is not common to trade: The existence of other registrations or pending applications containing the word ‘Marc’ or ‘Mar’ does not prove actual use in the market. The plea of commonness fails without proof of substantial third-party use.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.