$~3 (Original Side)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO-IPD 46/2021, CM APPL. 46817/2018 & CM APPL.

54484/2018 M/S FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Mr. Rajshekhar Rao and Mr. Manish Jha, Senior Advocates with Mr. Nitin Sharma, Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Mr. Ranjeet Singh Sidhu, Mr. Kuber Mahajan, Mr. Naman Tandon, Mr. Krisna Gambhir, Mr. Himanshu Mishra and Ms.

Shreya Sethi, Advocates.

Versus M/S MARC ENTERPRISES PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr.

Shravan Kumar Bansal, Mr. Rishi Bansal, Mr. Aviral Srivastava and Ms. Ayushi Arora, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R

% 07.02.2026 CM APPL. 46/2026

1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking leave to place additional documents on record.

2. Vide order dated 24.12.2025, the judgment is reserved in this Appeal. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that during the pendency of this Appeal, material and subsequent statutory development has taken place, which has direct and substantial bearing on the rights in dispute before this Court and, therefore, the same is required to be brought to the notice of this Court. It is submitted that the Appellant has applied for registration of the Mark, ‘Flipkart MarQ’ vide application number 4299058 in Class 7 and ‘MarQ by Flipkart’ vide application number 4537413 in Class 42, which have been registered on 28.02.2020 and 19.06.2021, respectively (“Appellant’s Trade Marks”).

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the above development could not be placed on record earlier owing to multiple changes in the management of the company from time to time, resulting in discontinuity and oversight and transfer of institutional knowledge. As the registration of the Appellant’s Trade Marks constitutes a supervening statutory event, it has direct impact on the maintainability of infringement claim as well as legality and sustainability of any injunctive relief sought or granted against the Appellant in the order dated 27.10.2018 (“Impugned Order”), challenged in this Appeal.

4. It was further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that as the Appellant’s Trade Marks continue to remain valid and subsisting, the said registrations confer upon the Appellant exclusive statutory rights in terms of Sections 28 and 31 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It was also submitted that the documents evidencing the registration of the Appellant’s Trade Marks were not in existence at the time of passing of the Impugned Order and could not have been produced earlier despite the Appellant’s due diligence. The subsequent registration of the Appellant’s Trade Marks is an important development, which is required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment in the present Appeal.

5. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that it is settled law that subsequent events, which have a direct and material bearing on the rights of the Parties ought to be taken into account, even at the appellate stage, particularly where the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue and to effectuate complete justice. It was submitted that the present Application squarely falls within the scope of Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) of the CPC, as the additional documents are necessary to enable this Court to pronounce judgment effectively in this Appeal.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Respondent was at all times aware of the Appellant’s Trade Mark applications and the opposition proceedings arising therefrom and, therefore, cannot claim any prejudice. It was further submitted that the Appellant did not wish to reopen the arguments of this Appeal, in which the judgment is already reserved, but only wished to bring the supervening statutory development on record to be considered at the time of pass