Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
Ampm Fashions Pvt.Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Ampm Fashions Pvt.ltd - Respondent
Miscellaneous Application No. 6026 of 2020 In Civil Suit (COMM)No. 272 of 2020
Decided On : 09-11-2021
AMPM - Trademark Dispute - Section 151 of CPC - Class 42 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought interim relief against the defendants under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for a trademark dispute. The plaintiff and defendants were in a battle concerning the use of the impugned trademark 'AMPM'. The plaintiff claimed to be in the business of fashion designing and had obtained registration of word mark and device mark under Class 18, 23, 24, 25 and 26. The defendants were in the business of interior design and lighting solutions and had obtained registration for the impugned mark under Class 42.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's mark 'AMPM' had not met the threshold to be considered a well-known mark. The court was not inclined to grant an injunction as claimed by the plaintiff. However, the defendants were bound by their additional affidavit to add the subtitle 'Interior design by Akash Mehta and Poonam Mehta' to the impugned mark and were required to submit a quarterly account statement to the Registry of the Court concerning the turnover generated under the impugned mark.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendants' use of the impugned mark 'AMPM' for interior design and lighting solutions was likely to cause confusion as to the origin of the services offered by the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the 'global appreciation' test to determine the likelihood of confusion and found that confusion as to the origin of the services offered by the defendants was remote. The court also rejected the plaintiff's claim that the mark 'AMPM' had attained the status of a well-known mark.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the application by not granting an injunction to the plaintiff but bound the defendants to display the subtitle 'Interior design by Akash Mehta and Poonam Mehta' alongside the impugned mark and submit a quarterly account statement to the Registry of the Court concerning the turnover generated under the impugned mark.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - Table of Contents
Backdrop
Submissions on behalf of the plaintiff
Submissions on behalf of the defendants
Analysis and Reasons:-
Conclusion:-
Backdrop:-
1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short "CPC"] for seeking interim relief against the defendants.
2. The plaintiff and the defendants are locked in a battle, concerning the use of the impugned trademark. The two rival trademarks are set forth hereafter:
Plaintiffs marks
Defendants impugned marks
2.1. As would be evident, both the trademarks have common alphabets i.e., AMPM, although, the defendants trademark i.e., the impugned trademark is stylized i.e., is written in italics, with the word "designs" as its suffix.
2.2. Insofar as the plaintiffs mark is concerned, apart from anything else, it indicates the names of the creators of the mark. The plaintiff asserts that its trademark is an acronym or a shortened form of the names of the owners of the said mark i.e., Ankur Modi and Priyanka Modi.
Plaintiff's assertions:-
3. The plaintiff avers that it is in the business of fashion designing. It is claimed by the plaintiff that, it deals in a whole range of products, which include, but are not limited to, wearable goods such as tunics, churidars, kurtas, dupattas, dresses, shirts, tops, anarkalis, women shirts, including footwear, belts and other accessories.
3.1. According to the plaintiff, it has obtained registration of word mark and device mark under Class 18, 23, 24, 25 and 26. The details of the registrations obtained are given in paragraph 11 of the plaint.
3.2. The earliest application, which the plaintiff claims to have been filed, is dated 14.05.2009, in which the user is claimed from 01.01.2002. This application is followed by six applications, out of which four applications are dated 02.07.2012, in which the date of the user is set forth as 01.12.2005. Insofar as the other two applications are concerned, they are dated 13.07.2018 and the date of the user is indicated as 01.04.2016.
3.3. Besides this, the plaintiff has also asserted, in paragraph 12 of the plaint, that it has applied for registering its trade mark "am:pm" in all classes including Class 42, in which the impugned mark is registered. In the said paragraph, there is a reference to other pending applications, as well.
3.4. The details concerning the revenue generated by the plaintiff and the expenses, include the following:
(i) The plaintiff claims that it generated a revenue of Rs. 2,70,15,654/- in 2009-2010, which stood enhanced to Rs. 28,73,05,481 in 2018-2019.
(ii) Likewise, insofar as expenditure incurred on the promotion of the trade marks is concerned, the plaintiff claims to have substantially increased its expend, from Rs.10.86 lakhs to Rs.1.08 crores in 2018-19.
3.5. Besides this, the plaintiff, to demonstrate the visibility of its trade mark, has adverted to the fact that various celebrities are associated with the AMPM brand, in myriad ways. There is also a reference in paragraph 18 of the plaint to shows/events, which the plaintiff claims to have held in various parts of the country.
3.6. It is claimed that the plaintiff is the owner of the domain name www.ampm.in. It is asserted that this domain name was registered on 22.12.2008.
3.7. According to the plaintiff, its products/goods are sold under the AMPM mark, both through outlets, and e-commerce platforms, such as Amazon, Myntra, Nykaa, AZA, Carma, Ogaan, amongst others.
3.8. It is also claimed by the plaintiff that, it has a presence on various social media platforms, including, but not limited to, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest and YouTube.
3.9. Furthermore, it is claimed by the plaintiff that, it has won various awards, such as the Elle Style Awards.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that, it became aware that the defendant was operating its business in breach of the impugned mark, in May 2020.
4.1. The plaintiff cla
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's mark 'AMPM' did not meet the threshold to be considered a well-known mark and the defendants' use of the impugned mark for int....
The court ruled that despite the plaintiff's prior usage claim, the distinct markets of the parties and lack of confusion led to the dismissal of the injunction request.
The court emphasized the importance of prior and extensive use of trademarks, substantial investment in promoting the marks, and the potential for confusion in determining trademark infringement and ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of prior use and the principles of honest adoption, delay, and acquiescence in trademark disputes.
The principle of prior user of a trademark prevails over subsequent registrations, especially when confusion or association is likely between goods and services of similar trade sectors.
The court established that the rights of the prior user of a trademark are superior to those of a subsequent user, emphasizing the elements of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage in passing off c....
Passing off is a tort action that prevents misrepresentation of goods or services as those of another trader. Prima facie case of passing off requires elements such as misrepresentation, prospective ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
