Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
Ampm Fashions Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Akash Anil Mehta, Partner of Ampm Designs - Respondent
I.A. No. 6026 of 2020 in CS(COMM) No. 272 of 2020
Decided On : 09-11-2021
Important Points
Subject
Intellectual Property - Trademark Law
Act Referred
PARIS CONVENTION: Art.6bis
TRADE MARKS ACT: S.11, S.135, S.2, S.27, S.28, S.29, S.33, S.9
DELETE: Art.16
Headnote
(B) Trademark Infringement - Likelihood of confusion - The court established criteria including the similarity of the marks, nature of goods/services, and consumer perception - No confusion indicated based on existing market distinctions between fashion goods and interior design. (Paras 10.1, 13.1)
(C) Well-Known Mark - The Court noted insufficient evidence for designating AMPM as a well-known mark, rejecting claims based solely on expenditure and absence of actual confusion instances. (Paras 18.6, 18.8)
Facts of the case:
Dispute between plaintiff (fashion business) and defendants (interior design) over trademark AMPM usage, resulting in claims of infringement and subsequent counterclaims by defendants.
Findings of Court:
Plaintiff failed to establish necessity for injunctive relief due to lack of confusion and no evidence of well-known trademark status.
Issues: Whether the use of AMPM by defendants infringes the plaintiff's trademark rights, and whether the mark is to be considered a well-known mark.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that despite plaintiff's prior claim of use, distinct market operations of both parties alongside absence of confusion led to the conclusion against granting interim injunction.
Result: Application dismissed; injunction denied.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interim relief application regarding trademark dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. plaintiff's and defendants' assertions on trademark usage. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. comparative analysis of plaintiff's and defendants' trademark claims. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. likelihood of confusion analysis in trademark cases. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. court's conclusion on injunction application. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
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
 | |||||||
 | |||||||
 | |||||||
 | |||||||
 | |||||||
 | |||||||
 |
