The Marq Trademark Dispute : Injunctions, Inventory Sell-Off And Consumer Confusion

Introduction : This conflict is part of the conflict over the conflicting marks “MARQ” and “MARC” for electrical/electronic goods. The case was heard from the Trial Court, the Delhi High Court up to the Supreme Court.

The main case before the Delhi High Court is related to the order dated 27th October 2018 passed by Additional District Judge (Patiala House Courts), New Delhi. Justice Tejas Karia heard and decided the appeal in the case of FAO-IPD 46/2021 on 10th April 2026. The appeal was rejected and the stay which was in place since 12th November 2018 was lifted.

This dispute is significant due to its practical implications such as the impact of interim injunction on existing stock, evaluation of phonetic similarity on e-commerce and the significance of subsequent trademarks during the appeals process.

Background of the Dispute

Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. had filed proceedings before the Trial Court for issuing a permanent injunction against the infringement of its “MARC” mark with prayer for reliefs including passing off, dilution and delivery up and rendition of accounts.

The Respondent was a business involved in the sale and manufacture of electrical accessories and fittings, electrical equipment, electrical appliances, electrical apparatus and instruments. It had acquired the registrations for the mark “MARC”, both in Classes 9 and 11. The applications that are referred to in the judgment are Application Nos. 420735, 420736, 420737, 911681, 911682 and 1256037.

Flipkart had an online trading platform, where different sellers such as Marc Enterprises sold their products. It also marketed products of its own under various labels and trademarks.

Flipkart launched “MARQ” and “marQ by Flipkart” as a trademark for the large electronic appliances in July 2017. It had been explained that the name came from the phrase “mark of quality”, where the “Q” stood for quality.

In October 2017 the Appellant applied for the registration of its microwave oven and television sets, and in November 2017, it introduced washing machines.

It was contended by Flipkart that till 11 January 2018, Flipkart sold 8,542 units under the disputed marks and earned a Gross Merchandise Value of approximately ₹6.91 crore.

The Interim Injunction

Interim Injunction Order was passed by the Trial Court dated 18 January 2018 ordering Flipkart not to use the contested marks. Flipkart had filed a Notice of Appeal against the Interim Order in the case of FAO 30/2018.

Thereafter, the High Court modified the interim injunction on 22 January 2018 in terms that Flipkart is permitted to clear their existing stock of televisions, microwave ovens and washing machines up to 30 January 2018. On 1st February 2018 the matter came before the High Court who directed that the stock will be cleared by 20th February 2018 and further application for extension to be made would be directed before the Trial Court again.

The Appellant then filed an application for setting aside an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC.

Finally, the Trial Court dismissed the Respondent's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1, 2 of CPC 1908 but rejected the Appellant's application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC 1908.

FAO-IPD 46/2021 Before Delhi High Court

Thereafter, the Appellant had filed an appeal with the Delhi High Court against the order dated 27th October 2018 issued by the Trial Court. The appeal was filed under the FAO-IPD 46/2021 wherein the order passed by High Court on 12 November 2018 impugning the order appealed against was passed. The appeal was still pending for a long time and the final arguments were made on 24 December 2025. While the appeal was pending, Flipkart had sought permission to present evidence in respect of the subsequent registration of the trademarks which incorporated the word “MarQ”. On 7th February 2026, the High Court allowed the Application made under Order XLI Rule 27 and Section 151 CPC with a cost of Rs. 2,00,000. These documents were relevant to the question of whether the injunction against the use of “MarQ” by Flipkart should continue to be in force or not, the Court said.

Contention of Flipkart

The key argument presented by Flipkart was that the names “MARQ” and “MARC” had different structural, appearance, pronunciation and commercial impression. It also observed that the house mark “MARQ” was given along with  the house mark “FLIPKART”, which would help consumers in determining the origin of the goods, as stated by the Appellant.Moreover, Flipkart banked on the way of selling the items. The products were being sold on its own ecommerce site, so it claimed that people were unlikely to link “MARQ” products with Marc Enterprises.

The Appellant also contended for difference between the parties based on their product range. It argued that Marc Enterprises was engaged in making products like water heaters, geysers, fans, air coolers, irons and hot plates, and not televisions, microwave ovens and washing machines sold under the “MARQ” name.

Lastly, Flipkart pointed out that the presence of third-party marks like “Marc”, “Mark” and “Mar” meant that they could not be deemed to be the exclusive property of the Respondent.

Use of the House Mark ‘Flipkart

Marc Enterprises argued that the similarity of the two marks posed a likelihood of confusion. It was based on its previous use of “MARC”, registered in 1981, and its trademark registration history since 1984.The Respondent also emphasized the similarity in nature of the trade and mode of trade. Marc Enterprises said that both parties traded in electrical and electronic goods and the sale of Flipkart's products online did not have any material effect on the likelihood of confusion.

It also noted that the word ‘Flipkart' when used with ‘MARQ' did not rectify the issue of similarity between the principal marks. Last but not least, it offered a challenge to Flipkart's use of third party registrations, noting that the fact that marks appear on the register does not mean they are actually being used 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 The rule that an Appellate Court should not replace its own mind with that of the Trial Court, when the latter's opinion is a possible one.The Respondent was treated as the prior user of ‘MARC’ with the first registration date being in 1984 and a user claim in 1981.The High Court also gave relevance to the phonetic similarity in determining infringement. It found that “MARC” and “MARQ” were phonetically as well as visually similar.

Phonetic and Visual Similarity

The Court considered phonetic similarity to be an important part of the assessment. The High Court found that “MARC” and “MARQ” were similar both in sound and appearance. It further denied that the sale of goods from the Internet made phonetic similarity less relevant to the question of whether the goods are likely to be confused.

Use of the House Mark “Flipkart”

The house brand “MARQ” was also a key factor for Flipkart. The High Court, however, wondered whether that extra branding was enough to separate the goods from a “MARC” connection. In exercise of anti-dissection approach, the Court looked at the entire marks and found that the use of “Flipkart” did not eliminate the likelihood of confusion in the present scenario.The Court pointed out that the Appellant would have to demonstrate that the additional material would be enough to distinguish their goods from the goods of the Respondent. The Court did not show that this was not the case.

Common to Register and Common to Trade The Appellant contended that the terms “Marc”, “Mark” and “Mar” have been registered as trademarks and there are other trademark applications filed with the same.

Flipkart also used a variety of other applications and registrations that include Marc, Mark and Mar. The High Court drew a distinction between the presence of similar marks on the register and the evidence that the marks were indeed being used in the market. The Court could not be persuaded to consider the Respondent's mark common to trade because of the absence of evidence of its use in the marketplace.

Common Trade Channels

The Court also looked at how the competing goods were coming to the consumer. The products of Marc Enterprises were sold on Flipkart and Flipkart's own products were sold on the same platform. This overlap in consumers' path to market was a factor in the Court's finding of addressing the same or overlapping market.In this case, the goods of the Respondent were sold via Flipkart’s platform, while Flipkart sold its goods via the same platform.So the Court decided that the goods used the same trade channels and were directed to 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 decided that the later registrations did not estop sustaining of the Injunction.The Court pointed out that as of the date of the impugned Order of the Trial Court, no such registration was in the Appellant's favour.The Court also noted that the Class 42 registration did not apply to the products in issue and the Class 7 registration only applied to washing machines. It added that the Class 7 registration was for ‘Flipkart MarQ' while the other class 7 ‘MarQ' registration was not yet received.The Court thus found that the subsequent registration was not an impediment to maintain the injunction.

Final Decision of the Delhi High Court

On 10th April 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed FAO-IPD 46/2021 and refused to set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 27th October 2018. This stay was then vacated. The Court stated that such observations were prima facie and for the purpose of the determination of the appeal.

The Court also made it clear that the observations made were “prima facie” and were made for the purpose of deciding the appeal.On the other hand, Flipkart had sought reasonable time after the judgment was passed to utilise and/or withdraw the goods selling goods under the Impugned Marks from the market.

An extension was not objected to by Marc Enterprises to be limited to compliance with the injunction.

As such, the Court extended the deadline to comply with the interim injunction till 15 May 2026 for Flipkart.

The 24 April 2026 Clarification Order

Flipkart then filed an application under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC (CM No. 109/2026).

Flipkart challenged paragraph 26 on the grounds that the decision had treated the request for time to comply with the injunction as a request for more time for it to seek alternative legal remedies.

The High Court said no to clarifying the request : The Court decided that paragraphs 26–28 were accurate in recording that which had happened following the pronouncing of the judgement.Meanwhile, the Court said that the assertion made in the aforesaid paragraph 26 shall not limit the right of Appellant to avail itself of legal remedies provided by the law and that the rights and contentions of the parties shall not be barred. The application was thus dismissed.

Proceedings before the SC

The argument then went on to the Supreme Court (SLP (C) No. 16438/2026). The Supreme Court, on 15 May 2026, rejected the interference by him with the orders passed by the Trial Court and the High Court and hence quashed the SLP. Meanwhile, it gave Flipkart a period of eight weeks to sell out the goods marketed under the impugned trademark and mandates filing of a compliance report before the Trial Court.

The problem of the stock of inventories was again raised on 6 August 2026. The Supreme Court by that order allowed further four weeks for exhaustion or disposal of remaining stock. It called for the filing of a Compliance Report after that and expressly stated that no further extension would be provided.

Conclusion

The practical impacts of adopting and commercializing a mark before considering potential conflicts with prior marks are demonstrated in the MARQ dispute. The case also illustrates that an interim injunction can have an impact on products already sold in the marketplace as the courts may permit a short period in which to sell existing stocks.

The litigation process took several years, starting with the interim injunction issued by the Trial Court in January 2018, followed by a litigation proceeding in the Delhi High Court in 2026 and the Supreme Court litigation in 2026. The High Court concluded that the combination of the two marks “MARC” and “MARQ” was “nearly identical and deceptively similar”, and did not hold that the fact that there were other marks on the register did not require adequate evidence of use would be sufficient to prevent Respondent's case.

The Supreme Court eventually refused to step in the middle of the High Court's decision, but did allow limited extra time to deal with the remaining stock. The dispute thus links up the questions of the priority of the use, similarity (deceptive and phonetic), overlapping trade channels, house marks, later registrations and practical application of actions in trademark infringement.

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