$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)-IPD 7/2026 MEHUL JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amandeep Singh, Mr. Pawan Kant Singh and Ms. Jagriti Singh, Advocates.

versus THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Om Ram, Advocate for Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC and Mr. Arnav Mittal, G.P.

for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 18.02.2026 CM 57/2026

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C)-IPD 7/2026

3. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking limited relief of a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks/Respondent No. 1 to expeditiously decide the pending TM-O/Opposition No. 1254125 and Petitioner’s Trademark Application No. 5961787 (Form TM-A) dated 01.06.2023 filed in Class 25 for registration of the word mark ‘AMAM’/ in a time bound manner.

4. Issue notice.

5. Mr. Om Ram, learned counsel accepts notice for Ms. Nidhi Raman, learned CGSC for Respondent No. 1.

6. Considering the limited relief sought by the Petitioner, notice to Respondent No. 2 is dispensed with.

7. It is stated in the writ petition that the Petitioner filed Trademark Application No. 5961787 (Form TM-A) on 01.06.2023 in Class 25 for registration of word mark ‘AMAM’/ before Respondent No. 1. On 03.06.2023, application was filed by the Petitioner before Respondent No. 1 seeking expedited consideration of the Trademark Application No. 5961787. The mark was published in Journal under No. 2114 on 24.07.2023. Form TM-O/Opposition No. 1254125 was filed by Respondent No. 2 on 11.11.2023, on which notice of opposition was issued by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner on 04.12.2023. Petitioner filed the Counter Statement to the opposition on 23.12.2023. Respondent No. 2 filed evidence affidavit under Rule 45 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017 (‘2017 Rules’) on 09.03.2024 and on 22.04.2024, Petitioner filed the evidence affidavit under Rule 46 of 2017 Rules, which was responded by Respondent No. 2 by filing a reply under Rule 47 of 2017 Rules. Notice of hearing was issued on 03.07.2024 fixing the hearing for 08.08.2024. As per the Petitioner, oral arguments were addressed by the parties on 08.08.2024 and written submissions were filed on 13.08.2024 and 20.08.2024 by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 respectively.

8. The limited grievance ventilated in the present writ petition is that despite hearing having been concluded way back on 08.08.2024 followed by filing of written submissions on 13.08.2024 and 20.08.2024 by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 respectively, no decision has been taken in the Trademark Application No. 5961787 and Form TM-O/Opposition No.

1254125, despite passage of over one year.

9. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing Respondent No. 1/Registrar of Trade Marks to decide the Trademark Application No. 5961787 and Form TM-O/Opposition No. 1254125 as expeditiously as possible and not later than three months from today.

JYOTI SINGH, J FEBRUARY 18, 2026 S.Sharma