{"id":22714,"date":"2026-04-25T07:00:40","date_gmt":"2026-04-25T07:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=22714"},"modified":"2026-04-25T07:08:01","modified_gmt":"2026-04-25T07:08:01","slug":"addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/","title":{"rendered":"Addition of House Mark in small font does not negate chances of confusion"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In a significant ruling that highlights the importance of trademark protection for established brands, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Flipkart India Private Limited against an interim injunction restraining it from using the mark \u201cMarQ\u201d (and variants like \u201cmarq\u201d) for its consumer electronics and appliances.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Flipkarts_Business_Entry\" >Flipkart\u2019s Business Entry<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Legal_Action_by_Marc_Enterprises\" >Legal Action by Marc Enterprises<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Trial_Court_Proceedings\" >Trial Court Proceedings<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Appeal_Before_High_Court\" >Appeal Before High Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Reasoning\" >Reasoning<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Three_Key_Ingredients_for_Interim_Injunction\" >Three Key Ingredients for Interim Injunction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Deceptive_Similarity_Analysis\" >Deceptive Similarity Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#House_Mark_Defense_Rejected\" >House Mark Defense Rejected<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Nature_of_Goods_and_Market_Overlap\" >Nature of Goods and Market Overlap<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Common_to_the_Trade_Defense\" >Common to the Trade Defense<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Subsequent_Registrations_Argument\" >Subsequent Registrations Argument<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Procedural_Fairness\" >Procedural Fairness<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Key_Judgments_Discussed_With_Citations_And_Context\" >Key Judgments Discussed With Citations And Context<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\" >Point of Law Settled in the Case<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Practical_Implications_for_Brands\" >Practical Implications for Brands<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/addition-of-house-mark-in-small-font-does-not-negate-chances-of-confusion\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>The court found that Flipkart\u2019s mark was deceptively similar to the older registered trademark \u201cMARC\u201d owned by Marc Enterprises Pvt Ltd, a Delhi-based company dealing in electrical goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Deceptive similarity between \u201cMarQ\u201d and \u201cMARC\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Protection of prior registered trademarks<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Consumer confusion in the electronics market<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>This decision underscores how courts evaluate likelihood of confusion between similar-sounding and similar-looking marks, especially in the fast-growing e-commerce and electronics sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Even house marks like \u201cFlipkart\u201d added in small font will not negate the chances of confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"factual-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Marc Enterprises Pvt Ltd, the respondent, has been in the business of manufacturing and selling electrical accessories, fittings, equipment, appliances, and instruments for decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It adopted the mark \u201cMARC\u201d as early as 1981 and secured registrations starting from 1984 in relevant classes such as 7, 9, 11 etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The company claimed continuous use through invoices and other documents dating back to the early 1980s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"flipkart-business-entry\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Flipkarts_Business_Entry\"><\/span>Flipkart\u2019s Business Entry<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Flipkart India Private Limited, the appellant, is a well-known e-commerce platform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In 2017, it decided to launch its own private label for large appliances including televisions, air conditioners, washing machines, and microwave ovens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For this line, Flipkart adopted the marks \u201cmarq\u201d, styling them with a capital \u201cQ\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Trademark applications filed: July 2017<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Product launch: October\u2013November 2017<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Sales channel: Flipkart website<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"legal-action-by-marc\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Action_by_Marc_Enterprises\"><\/span>Legal Action by Marc Enterprises<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Marc Enterprises filed a suit in the trial court seeking to stop Flipkart from using \u201cMarQ\u201d\/\u201cmarq\u201d, alleging trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, and related reliefs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It argued that the marks were phonetically and structurally too close, likely causing ordinary consumers to confuse the source of the goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"procedural-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"trial-court-proceedings\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Trial_Court_Proceedings\"><\/span>Trial Court Proceedings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Stage<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>January 2018<\/td><td>Ad-interim injunction granted against Flipkart<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Post-Injunction<\/td><td>Flipkart challenged before High Court and got limited extensions<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>October 2018<\/td><td>Trial court confirmed injunction<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The trial court (Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi) initially granted an ad-interim injunction in January 2018 against Flipkart\u2019s use of the impugned marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Flipkart challenged this before the High Court and obtained limited extensions to clear existing stock.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Later, Flipkart applied to vacate the injunction, while Marc Enterprises sought confirmation of the interim relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In October 2018, the trial court passed the impugned order confirming the injunction in favor of Marc Enterprises under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dismissed Flipkart\u2019s vacation application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"appeal-before-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appeal_Before_High_Court\"><\/span>Appeal Before High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Aggrieved, Flipkart filed the present appeal under Order 43(1)(R) CPC before the Delhi High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Injunction stayed during appeal pendency<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Additional documents filed by Flipkart<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Composite marks: \u201cFlipkart MarQ\u201d and \u201cMarQ by Flipkart\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The operation of the injunction was stayed during the pendency of the appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>After hearings, the High Court reserved judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Flipkart later sought to place additional documents on record showing subsequent registrations of composite marks like \u201cFlipkart MarQ\u201d and \u201cMarQ by Flipkart\u201d in certain classes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The court allowed this but with costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Final arguments concluded, leading to the judgment on 10 April 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reasoning-overview\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning\"><\/span>Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The High Court applied the limited scope of interference in appeals against discretionary interim injunction orders. It could only intervene if the trial court\u2019s decision was perverse or contrary to settled law \u2014 meaning no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion on the facts and legal principles. Citing landmark <a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/articles\/index.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Supreme Court<\/a> decisions, the court stressed that appellate courts should not substitute their own view merely because another outcome seems preferable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"interim-injunction-principles\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Three_Key_Ingredients_for_Interim_Injunction\"><\/span>Three Key Ingredients for Interim Injunction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>On merits, the court examined the three classic ingredients for interim injunction in trademark cases:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Prima Facie Case<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Balance of Convenience<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Irreparable Injury<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>It found that Marc Enterprises had a strong prima facie case as the prior user (since 1981) and prior registrant (from 1984) of an inherently distinctive, coined mark \u201cMARC\u201d. Flipkart\u2019s adoption in 2017 came much later for allied goods in the electrical and electronics category.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"deceptive-similarity-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Deceptive_Similarity_Analysis\"><\/span>Deceptive Similarity Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The core issue was deceptive similarity. The court held that \u201cMARC\u201d and \u201cMARQ\u201d\/\u201cmarq\u201d were phonetically similar. Visually too, they overlapped significantly. The court rejected Flipkart\u2019s argument that its unique stylization with a capital \u201cQ\u201d (pronounced as \u201cMar Queue\u201d) and association with \u201cquality\u201d made the marks distinct. It noted that consumers, including semi-literate ones, may not perceive such nuances and could easily confuse the marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"house-mark-defense\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"House_Mark_Defense_Rejected\"><\/span>House Mark Defense Rejected<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Flipkart\u2019s reliance on using its house mark \u201cFlipkart\u201d alongside \u201cMarQ\u201d was also dismissed. The court observed that the house mark was often used in a minuscule font or sometimes not at all, and mere addition of a house mark does not eliminate confusion when the dominant elements are similar. It cited precedents emphasizing that the overall impression on consumers matters more than minor differences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"nature-of-goods\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Nature_of_Goods_and_Market_Overlap\"><\/span>Nature of Goods and Market Overlap<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The goods were allied and cognate \u2014 both involved electrical\/electronic appliances sold through common channels, including online platforms like Flipkart\u2019s own website (where Marc\u2019s products were also available). This increased the likelihood of confusion among the same class of buyers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"common-to-trade-defense\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Common_to_the_Trade_Defense\"><\/span>Common to the Trade Defense<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>On the \u201ccommon to the trade\u201d defense, the court clarified that mere registrations or pending applications containing \u201cMAR\u201d, \u201cMARC\u201d, or \u201cMARK\u201d do not prove actual widespread use in the market. Common-to-register is not the same as common-to-trade; substantial evidence of actual use by third parties is required, which Flipkart failed to establish convincingly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"subsequent-registrations\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Subsequent_Registrations_Argument\"><\/span>Subsequent Registrations Argument<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Regarding Flipkart\u2019s later registrations of composite marks like \u201cFlipkart MarQ\u201d, the court held these did not impact the appeal. The injunction was based on passing off and prior rights as well, and the subsequent events (post-dating the impugned order) could not retrospectively validate the adoption or override the deceptive similarity finding at the prima facie stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"procedural-fairness\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Fairness\"><\/span>Procedural Fairness<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The court also addressed procedural fairness concerns raised by Flipkart but found no violation that warranted interference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-judgments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Judgments_Discussed_With_Citations_And_Context\"><\/span>Key Judgments Discussed With Citations And Context<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The court referred to several important precedents to guide its analysis, explaining their relevance in simple terms:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Case Name<\/th><th>Citation<\/th><th>Legal Principle<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.<\/td><td>1991 PTC 1 (SC)<\/td><td>Limited appellate interference in interim injunction matters<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Mohd. Mehtab Khan v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan<\/td><td>(2013) 9 SCC 221<\/td><td>Appellate courts should not substitute discretion unless perverse<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.<\/td><td>(2001) 5 SCC 73<\/td><td>Test of average consumer with imperfect recollection<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Ruston &amp; Hornsby Ltd. v. The Zamindara Engineering Co.<\/td><td>(1969) 2 SCC 727<\/td><td>Likelihood of deception or confusion test<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>F. Hoffmann-la Roche &amp; Co. Ltd. v. Geoffrey Manner &amp; Co. Pvt. Ltd.<\/td><td>(1969) 2 SCC 716<\/td><td>Phonetic similarity alone not always sufficient<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.<\/td><td>(2018)<\/td><td>Distinction in marks and goods relevance<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Skyline Education Institute Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani<\/td><td>(2010) 2 SCC 142<\/td><td>Phonetic similarity arguments<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai<\/td><td>2022 SCC OnLine SC 61<\/td><td>House mark does not eliminate confusion<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Marico Ltd. v. Minolta Natural Care<\/td><td>2025:BHC-OS:24054<\/td><td>Dominant mark test<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Exotic Mile v. Imagine Marketing (P) Ltd.<\/td><td>2025 SCC OnLine Del 5969<\/td><td>Online sales do not remove confusion risk<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>These cases were cited by Flipkart to argue that phonetic similarity alone is insufficient. The court distinguished them, noting that when overall similarity (phonetic + structural + visual) creates confusion, especially with prior rights, infringement is made out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The court discussed these judgments in the context of Indian market realities, consumer behavior, and the need to protect prior users while discouraging dishonest or confusing adoptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-decision-of-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Delhi High Court dismissed Flipkart\u2019s appeal in its entirety, upholding the trial court\u2019s interim injunction. It found no perversity or legal error in the impugned order. The stay granted earlier was vacated. However, considering the pendency of the appeal and practical difficulties, the court granted Flipkart time until 15 May 2026 to clear or withdraw existing stock bearing the \u201cMarQ\u201d\/\u201cmarq\u201d marks from the market. No costs were awarded. All observations were prima facie, as the main suit remains pending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"point-of-law-settled\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled in the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>This judgment reinforces several practical principles :<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Prior Use and Registration:<\/strong> First, prior use and registration give strong rights; a later adopter bears the risk if its mark closely resembles an established one, especially for related goods.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Test of Deceptive Similarity:<\/strong> Second, deceptive similarity is assessed holistically \u2014 how an ordinary consumer (not an expert) would perceive the marks in real-life buying situations, considering imperfect memory. Phonetic and structural overlaps matter a lot, even in stylized forms or online sales.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Use of House Mark:<\/strong> Third, adding a house mark in small font does not automatically save a similar mark if the core part remains confusingly close. The overall commercial impression counts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Common to Trade Defense:<\/strong> Fourth, claims of \u201ccommon to trade\u201d require solid evidence of actual widespread use by others, not just registry searches.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Appellate Interference:<\/strong> Finally, appellate courts are reluctant to interfere with interim injunctions unless they are clearly unreasonable, preserving the status quo and protecting established goodwill during litigation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"practical-implications-for-brands\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Practical_Implications_for_Brands\"><\/span>Practical Implications for Brands<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The ruling sends a clear message to brands: conduct thorough clearance searches and avoid marks that could ride on the reputation of earlier ones, particularly in competitive sectors like electronics and e-commerce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Particulars<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Case Title<\/td><td>Flipkart India Private Limited Vs Marc Enterprises Pvt Ltd<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Date of Order<\/td><td>10 April 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Case Number<\/td><td>FAO-IPD 46\/2021<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Neutral Citation<\/td><td>2026:DHC:3004<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Name of Court<\/td><td>High Court of Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Name of Hon&#8217;ble Judge<\/td><td>Hon&#8217;ble Justice Shri Tejas Karia<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"legal-disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/strong>, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], <a href=\"\/lawyers\/delhi.htm\">High Court of Delhi<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction In a significant ruling that highlights the importance of trademark protection for established brands, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Flipkart India Private Limited against an interim injunction restraining it from using the mark \u201cMarQ\u201d (and variants like \u201cmarq\u201d) for its consumer electronics and appliances. The court found that Flipkart\u2019s mark<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":22713,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[5873],"tags":[28,5969],"class_list":{"0":"post-22714","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-trademark-law","8":"tag-top-news","9":"tag-trademark-laws"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Capture.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22714","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22714"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22714\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22726,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22714\/revisions\/22726"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22713"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22714"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22714"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22714"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}