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.

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:

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 plaintiff's 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 socia