Ampm Fashions Private Limited v. Mr. Akash Anil Mehta, Partner Of Ampm Designs & Anr.

I.A. No.6026/2020 in CS(COMM)No.272/2020

The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application concerning the use of the 'AMPM' trademark. While the plaintiff asserted its mark was well-known and infringed upon by the defendant's stylized version, the court declined to grant the requested injunction. However, in a compromise, the defendants agreed to prominently display a specific subtitle ('Interior design by Akash Mehta and Poonam Mehta') alongside their impugned mark and submit quarterly turnover accounts to the court.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
I.A. No.6026/2020 in CS(COMM)No.272/2020
Judge(s)
Rajiv Shakdher

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Ampm Fashions Private Limited vs Mr. Akash Anil Mehta, Partner Of Ampm Designs & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkC.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 119/2021

LorealvsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks

The Delhi High Court allowed Loreal's appeal against the refusal of its trademark application 'PILLOW PROOF BLOWDRY' for hair care products. The court found that the mark was suggestive rather than descriptive, noting that while individual words are common, their combination does not immediately describe the product. Consequently, the court set aside the previous orders and directed the Trademark Registry to proceed with registration, provided a disclaimer is placed on the rights of the individual component words.

trademarkO.A. No. 324 of 2001

S.V.S. Oil Mills Represented By Its ...vsS.V.S. Rajkumar Trading As Agro Foods & ...

The Madras High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of S.V.S. Oil Mills against S.V.S. Rajkumar Trading As Agro Foods, finding that the respondent was engaging in passing off. The court determined that despite family connections and prior disputes over the name 'S.V.S.', the use of the identical trademark by the respondent for similar edible oil goods would create confusion among consumers. Given the applicant's long-standing goodwill and market presence, the injunction was upheld to protect the established brand.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 324/2021

Modi Paints And Varnish WorksvsSanjay Gupta And Anr.

The Delhi High Court granted a petition for the rectification and removal of the 'MODI CRYL' trademark. The court found that the trademark, registered in the name of Sanjay Gupta, had lapsed as its renewal was due but never completed after May 21, 2018. Since the mark was no longer subsisting, the petitioner's request for its removal was satisfied.

trademarkC.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 44/2024

Avient Switzerland GmbhvsTreadfast Ventures & Anr.

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Avient Switzerland Gmbh, setting aside the previous rejection of its trademark application 'RENOL'. The court found that the original Trade Marks Registry failed to holistically consider all evidence presented by the appellant during the opposition proceedings. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the Registrar for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the applicant a second chance to prove their claim.

trademarkCivil Revision Petition No.3961 of 2025

M/S. Vaidehi Agro Oils Pvt. LtdvsM/S. Sri Tulasi Industries

The Telangana High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition filed by M/S. Vaidehi Agro Oils Pvt. Ltd against an order passed by the District Judge, Kamareddy. The petitioner argued that their application seeking a stay of proceedings in a trademark infringement suit should not have been dismissed as infructuous while a higher court's stay was still pending. The High Court found the trial judge's dismissal erroneous and set aside the impugned order, directing the lower court to reconsider the applications.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar trademark matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call