SC upholds HC order directing Flipkart not to use 'MarQ' name

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Delhi High Court order restraining Flipkart India from using 'MarQ' brand name on its electronics products because it's similar to Marc Enterprises' 'Marc' trademark.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the two marks appeared "substantially similar," including in pronunciation and overall commercial impression, and they are applied to similar types of goods.

The bench granted eight weeks to Flipkart to dispose of the remaining stock of electronics goods with MarQ name.


"This law is clear... We won't allow similar or dissimilar or deceptively similar marks in this sort. It will create confusion," the top court said, while refusing to interfere with the interim orders passed by a trial court and the Delhi HC.

Last month, the HC held that even though Flipkart sold MarQ-branded goods exclusively through its electronic commerce platform, phonetic similarity between the two competing brands was relevant. It barred the company from manufacturing and selling electronics products under MarQ brand.

Senior counsel Rajshekhar Rao, appearing for Flipkart, told the SC that the ecommerce company was willing to fully rebrand its products while urging the court to explore mediation to resolve the issue. Senior counsel Akhil Sibal, appearing for Marc Enterprises, opposed the proposal, saying the parties had already undergone mediation proceedings multiple times before the Delhi HC, but no settlement could be reached.

Flipkart launched MarQ brand in July 2017. Since then, it has been continuously selling products including microwave ovens, televisions, washing machines and air-conditioners under the brand through its website.

The company said it sells around a hundred units of inventory under the MarQ name every day.

Marc Enterprises said it has been continuously using the Marc brand name since 1981 and alleged that Flipkart was a dishonest adopter and fraudulent user of a deceptively similar trademark. The products under the two brands are identical, and sold through common trade channels to the same class of customers, it alleged.