The MARQ Trademark Dispute: Injunctions, Inventory Sell - Off and Consumer Confusion

Introduction : The dispute concerns the competing use of the marks “MARQ” and “MARC” in relation to electrical and electronic goods. The litigation progressed from the Trial Court to the Delhi High Court and ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

The principal proceedings before the Delhi High Court arose from the order dated 27 October 2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The appeal, FAO-IPD 46/2021, was decided by Justice Tejas Karia on 10 April 2026. The High Court dismissed the appeal and vacated the stay that had operated since 12 November 2018.

The dispute is significant because it raises practical questions concerning the effect of interim injunctions on existing inventory, the assessment of phonetic similarity in an e-commerce setting, and the relevance of subsequent trademark registrations during appellate proceedings.

Background of the Dispute

Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. instituted proceedings before the Trial Court seeking a permanent injunction against infringement of its “MARC” mark, along with reliefs relating to passing off, dilution, delivery up and rendition of accounts.

The Respondent was engaged in the business of selling and manufacturing electrical accessories and fittings, electrical equipment, electrical appliances, electrical apparatus and instruments. It had acquired the registrations for the mark “MARC”, including registrations in Classes 9 and 11. The registrations referred to in the judgement include Application Nos. 420735, 420736, 420737, 911681, 911682 and 1256037.

Flipkart operated an e-commerce marketplace through which products of different companies, including Marc Enterprises, were sold. It also marketed products of its own under various labels and trademarks.

In July 2017, Flipkart introduced “MARQ” and “marQ by Flipkart” as marks for large electronic appliances. Its explanation was that the name was derived from the expression “mark of quality”, with “Q” representing quality.

The Appellant filed applications for registration of its marks and subsequently launched microwave ovens, television sets in October 2017 and washing machines in November 2017.

Flipkart stated that, by 11 January 2018, it had sold 8,542 units under the disputed marks, generating a Gross Merchandise Value of approximately ₹6.91 crore.

The Interim Injunction

On 18 January 2018, the Trial Court granted an interim injunction restraining Flipkart from using the disputed marks. Flipkart challenged the order before the Delhi High Court in FAO 30/2018.

The High Court subsequently modified the injunction on 22 January 2018 by permitting Flipkart to clear its existing stock of televisions, microwave ovens and washing machines until 30 January 2018. When the appeal was disposed of on 1 February 2018, the period for clearing the stock was extended until 5 February 2018, with any further request for extension to be placed before the Trial Court.

The Appellant thereafter filed the application under the Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking vacation of an interim injunction.

The Trial Court ultimately passed the order dated 27 October 2018, allowing the Respondent’s application under the Order XXXIX Rule 1, 2 of CPC 1908 and dismissing the Appellant’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC.

FAO-IPD 46/2021 Before Delhi High Court

Flipkart subsequently challenged the Trial Court's order dated 27 October 2018 before the Delhi High Court. The matter was registered as FAO-IPD 46/2021, and on 12 November 2018 the High Court stayed the operation of the impugned order. The appeal remained pending for several years, with final arguments eventually being concluded and judgment reserved on 24 December 2025.

While the appeal was pending, Flipkart sought permission to introduce documents relating to subsequent registrations of marks containing “MarQ”. On 7 February 2026, the High Court allowed the application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC, subject to costs of ₹2,00,000. The Court considered the documents relevant to the issue of whether the injunction restraining Flipkart's use of “MarQ” should continue.

Contention of Flipkart

Flipkart's principal submission was that “MARQ” and “MARC” differed in their structure, appearance, pronunciation and overall commercial impression. It also emphasised that “MARQ” was presented alongside the house mark “FLIPKART”, which, according to the Appellant, would enable consumers to identify the source of the goods.

Flipkart further relied on the manner in which its products were sold. Since the products were offered through its own e-commerce platform, it argued that consumers were unlikely to associate “MARQ” products with Marc Enterprises.

The Appellant also sought to distinguish the parties on the basis of their product ranges. It contended that Marc Enterprises dealt in products such as water heaters, geysers, fans, air coolers, irons and hot plates, rather than the televisions, microwave ovens and washing machines sold under “MARQ”.

Finally, Flipkart relied upon the presence of third-party marks containing “Marc”, “Mark” and “Mar” and argued that these expressions could not be treated as exclusively belonging to the Respondent.

Use of the House Mark ‘Flipkart

Marc Enterprises took the position that the two marks were sufficiently similar to create a likelihood of confusion. It relied on its earlier use of “MARC”, dating back to 1981, and its trademark registration history beginning in 1984.

The Respondent also stressed the overlap in the nature and channels of trade. According to Marc Enterprises, both parties dealt with electrical and electronic goods and the fact that Flipkart's products were sold online did not materially reduce the possibility of confusion.

It further argued that the use of “Flipkart” alongside “MARQ” did not cure the similarity between the principal marks. Finally, it disputed Flipkart's reliance on third-party registrations, pointing out that the mere presence of marks on the register did not establish actual use in the marketplace.

Findings of the Delhi High Court

The High Court approached the appeal with the limited scope applicable to appellate review of an interim injunction. It considered whether the Trial Court's exercise of discretion was sufficiently unreasonable or legally unsustainable to warrant interference.

The Court relied upon Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. and Mohd. Mehtab Khan v. Khushnuma Ibrahim for the principle that an appellate court should not ordinarily substitute its own discretion for that exercised by the Trial Court where the latter's view is a reasonably possible one.

The Respondent was treated as the prior user of ‘MARC’, with a user claim dating from 1981, and its first registration dating from 1984.

The High Court also treated phonetic similarity as significant in assessing infringement. It found that “MARC” and “MARQ” were phonetically as well as visually similar.

Phonetic and Visual Similarity

Phonetic similarity formed an important part of the Court's assessment. The High Court found that “MARC” and “MARQ” were similar both in sound and appearance. It also rejected the suggestion that online sales eliminated the relevance of phonetic similarity when assessing the likelihood of confusion.

Use of the House Mark “Flipkart”

Flipkart also relied on the presence of its house mark alongside “MARQ”. The High Court, however, considered whether that additional branding was sufficient to distinguish the goods from those associated with “MARC”. Applying the anti-dissection approach, the Court considered the competing marks in their entirety and concluded that the addition of “Flipkart” did not, in the circumstances, remove the likelihood of confusion.

The Court noted that the Appellant had to show that the additional material would be sufficient to differentiate its goods from the goods of the Respondent. According to the Court, this had not been shown.

Common to Register and Common to Trade

The Appellant had argued that there were other trademark applications and registrations using the terms “Marc”, “Mark”, and “Mar”.

Flipkart also relied upon other applications and registrations containing “Marc”, “Mark” and “Mar”. The High Court distinguished between the existence of similar marks on the register and evidence that those marks were actually being used in the market. In the absence of sufficient evidence of marketplace use, the Court was not prepared to treat the Respondent's mark as common to trade.

Common Trade Channels

The Court also considered the channels through which the competing goods reached consumers. Marc Enterprises' products were available on Flipkart, while Flipkart's own products were sold through the same platform. This overlap in the route to market supported the Court's conclusion that the parties addressed the same or overlapping class of consumers.

In this case, the goods of the Respondent were sold via Flipkart’s platform, while Flipkart sold its goods via the same platform.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the goods moved in the same trade channels and shared the same class of customers.

Subsequent Trademark Registrations

The appellate proceedings also involved trademark registrations obtained by Flipkart after the dispute had commenced. The relevant registrations recorded in the judgment are set out below:

The judgement records the following registrations:

Application No.	Trademark	Class	Status
3890175	Flipkart MarQ	9	Opposed
3890176	Flipkart MarQ	11	Opposed
4299059	MarQ by Flipkart	7	Opposed
4299058	Flipkart MarQ	7	Registered on 28.02.2020
4537413	MarQ by Flipkart	42	Registered on 19.06.2021

The High Court held that the later registrations did not prevent the injunction from being sustained.

The Court noted that at the time of the Trial Court’s impugned Order, no such registration existed in favour of the Appellant.

The Court further observed that the Class 42 registration did not relate to the products in dispute, while the Class 7 registration was relevant only insofar as washing machines were concerned. It also noted that the Class 7 registration was for ‘Flipkart MarQ’, whereas separate registration for ‘MarQ’ had not yet been granted.

The Court therefore concluded that the subsequent registration did not constitute a barrier to sustaining the injunction.

Final Decision of the Delhi High Court

On 10 April 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed FAO-IPD 46/2021 and declined to interfere with the Trial Court's order dated 27 October 2018. The stay that had operated since 12 November 2018 was consequently vacated. The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and confined to the determination of the appeal.

The Court also clarified that its observations were prima facie and were made for the purpose of deciding the appeal.

However, after the pronouncement of the judgement, Flipkart requested reasonable time to exhaust or withdraw products bearing the Impugned Marks that were available in the market.

Marc Enterprises did not object to an extension limited to compliance with the injunction.

Consequently, the Court granted Flipkart time until 15 May 2026 to comply with the interim injunction.

The 24 April 2026 Clarification Order

Flipkart subsequently filed CM No. 109/2026 under Sections 151 and 152 CPC.

Flipkart sought clarification of paragraph 26, contending that the judgment had characterised its request as one for additional time to comply with the injunction rather than as a request for time to pursue available legal remedies.

The High Court rejected the request for clarification.

The Court held that paragraphs 26 to 28 correctly recorded what had transpired after pronouncement of the judgement.

At the same time, the Court stated that the statement recorded in paragraph 26 would not prevent Appellant from availing itself of legal remedies available under the law and that the rights and contentions of the parties remained open.

The application was accordingly disposed of.

Proceedings Before Supreme Court

The dispute subsequently reached the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 16438/2026. On 15 May 2026, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court and dismissed the SLP. At the same time, it allowed Flipkart eight weeks to exhaust the products bearing the disputed mark and directed the filing of a compliance report before the Trial Court.

The issue of existing inventory arose again on 6 August 2026. By that order, the Supreme Court granted a further four weeks for exhaustion or disposal of the remaining stock. It directed that a Compliance Report be filed thereafter and expressly stated that no further extension would be granted.

Conclusion

The MARQ dispute illustrates the practical consequences that can follow when a mark is adopted and commercialised before potential conflicts with earlier marks have been adequately assessed. The case also demonstrates that the effect of an interim injunction may extend to goods already placed in the market, since courts may allow a limited period for dealing with existing inventory.

The litigation lasted several years, beginning with the Trial Court's interim injunction in January 2018 and continuing through the Delhi High Court proceedings and the subsequent Supreme Court proceedings in 2026. At the interim stage, the High Court found the marks “MARC” and “MARQ” to be “nearly identical and deceptively similar” and did not accept the argument that the existence of other marks on the register, without sufficient evidence of actual use, was enough to defeat the Respondent's case.

The Supreme Court ultimately declined to interfere with the High Court's decision, while granting limited additional time for dealing with the remaining stock. The dispute therefore brings together issues of prior use, deceptive and phonetic similarity, overlapping trade channels, house marks, subsequent registrations and the practical enforcement of trademark injunctions.

Author: Rishabh Jain in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to content@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

Endnotes

1. M/s Flipkart India Private Limited v. M/s Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., FAO-IPD 46/2021, judgment dated 10 April 2026, High Court of Delhi. The Delhi High Court dismissed Flipkart's appeal against the Trial Court's interim injunction, holding that the marks “MARC” and “MARQ” were prima facie phonetically and visually similar. The Court also considered prior use, overlapping trade channels, the house mark “Flipkart”, third-party registrations and subsequent registrations obtained during the appeal.

2. M/s Flipkart India Private Limited v. M/s Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., FAO-IPD 46/2021, order dated 7 February 2026, High Court of Delhi. The Court allowed Flipkart's application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to place subsequent trademark registrations on record, subject to costs of ₹2,00,000, for consideration while deciding the appeal.

3. M/s Flipkart India Private Limited v. M/s Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., FAO-IPD 46/2021, CM No. 109/2026, order dated 24 April 2026, High Court of Delhi. The Court rejected Flipkart's application seeking clarification or modification of the judgment under Sections 151 and 152 CPC, while clarifying that the statement recorded regarding time for compliance would not prevent the appellant from pursuing legal remedies otherwise available under law.

4. M/s Flipkart India Private Limited v. M/s Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., SLP (C) No. 16438/2026, order dated 15 May 2026, Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order and dismissed the SLP, while granting Flipkart eight weeks to exhaust products bearing the disputed mark and requiring a compliance report thereafter.

5. Wander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727. The Supreme Court explained the limited scope of appellate interference with discretionary orders granting or refusing interim injunctions: an appellate court should not ordinarily substitute its own discretion merely because another view is possible. This principle was expressly relied upon by the Delhi High Court in the MARQ–MARC dispute.

6. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, ss. 29 and 135 (India). Section 29 sets out circumstances in which use of an identical or deceptively similar mark may amount to infringement, including spoken use of distinctive word elements under Section 29(9). Section 135 provides for remedies in infringement and passing-off actions, including injunctions, damages or accounts of profits, and delivery-up or destruction of infringing labels and marks. These provisions form the statutory background to injunction and inventory-related relief in trademark litigation.