Summary
In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Under Armour Inc. against Indian apparel entity Anish Agarwal & Anr., restraining the use of the trademarks ‘AERO ARMOUR’ and ‘ARMR’ during the pendency of the suit. The Court found that the respondents’ marks bore deceptive similarity to Under Armour’s registered word mark ‘UNDER ARMOUR’, and that their adoption for similar goods was prima facie infringing and not bona fide. The Court came to its conclusion of trademark infringement based on initial interest confusion among consumers, and by applying the dominant part rule.
Under Armour’s Suit and Infringement Claims
Under Armour, a global leader in performance and sportswear apparel founded in 1996, entered the Indian market in 2017 through e-commerce and opened its first brick-and-mortar store in 2019. With a strong portfolio of trademarks such as UNDER ARMOUR, ARMOURVENT, ARMOURFLEECE, and others, the company claimed long-standing goodwill and brand recognition across markets in India and internationally.
The dispute arose when Under Armour observed the use of the marks ‘AERO ARMOUR’ and ‘ARMR’ by the respondents in relation to clothing and accessories sold online, including through a dedicated website. These marks, Under Armour argued, were structurally and phonetically similar to its own, creating a likelihood of consumer confusion and amounting to trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution.
Under Armour also submitted that the respondents had copied Under Armour’s logo placement style—particularly printing the brand name along the sleeves of T-shirts—and had adopted a stylised abbreviation (‘ARMR’) nearly identical to the one used by Under Armour.
Respondents’ Response:
In response, the respondents contended that their brand was independently conceived, inspired by themes of Indian military, aviation, and patriotism. They asserted that ‘AERO ARMOUR’ combined two generic terms and was distinct from Under Armour’s mark in tone, theme, and visual representation. Additionally, they claimed to target a different customer base by focusing on casual wear with patriotic messaging, unlike Under Armour’s sports and performance-oriented apparel.
The respondents further submitted that the term ‘ARMOUR’ was not registered independently by Under Armour in India and that numerous trademarks containing ‘ARMOUR’ were already in use by third parties.
Single Judge’s Order: Limited Restrictions, No Injunction
The Single Judge of the Delhi high Court declined to grant interim relief to Under Armour, reasoning that the marks, when viewed holistically, were dissimilar. They stated that today’s consumers were well informed and unlikely to be confused due to differences in design themes, price points, and purchasing context. Nevertheless, the court imposed limited restraints on the respondents, including an undertaking not to use ‘ARMR’, not to market goods as sportswear, and not to print ‘AERO ARMOUR’ on sleeves as previously done.
Division Bench on Initial Interest Confusion, Dominant Part, and Dishonesty
Upon appeal, the Division Bench took a broader view of the matter. It noted that Under Armour’s mark is a strong and reputed trademark with significant goodwill, and that such marks deserve enhanced protection. The Court held that the focus should not have been on the visual themes or slogans used on the clothing but rather on the trademarks themselves, which serve as identifiers of source.
With respect to consumer confusion, the Court applied the initial interest confusion doctrine. It ruled that even if confusion does not persist until the point of sale, the capture of consumer attention at the initial stage through a deceptively similar mark would be sufficient to constitute infringement. As per the Court, A consumer, upon seeing ‘AERO ARMOUR’, might mistakenly associate it with ‘UNDER ARMOUR’ even for a brief moment, and that momentary deception would fulfill the test of likelihood of confusion under Indian trademark law.
About the anti-dissection rule, the Court observed that the anti-dissection rule does not preclude consideration of the dominant part of a trademark when evaluating overall similarity. While composite marks must be assessed in their entirety, the Court stated that it is permissible to analyse their components to determine how each contributes to the overall commercial impression. Applying this principle to the facts of the case, the Court noted that the word ‘ARMOUR’, though not independently registered in India by the appellant, featured prominently in a wide family of its marks such as UNDER ARMOUR, ARMOURVENT, and ARMOURFLEECE, and had over time acquired source-identifying distinctiveness. As per the Court, the impugned mark ‘AERO ARMOUR’ retained this dominant element and, when viewed as a whole, evoked a similar commercial impression, especially in the context of identical goods being sold through overlapping trade channels. It reiterated that where the dominant portion of the junior mark mirrors that of a strong senior mark, and contributes materially to consumer association, the similarity cannot be brushed aside merely due to differences in secondary elements.
Regarding the respondents’ intent, the Court observed that their adoption of the impugned marks was not entirely honest. It noted the deliberate visual placement of ‘AERO ARMOUR’ on sleeves—mirroring Under Armour’s style—and the use of the abbreviation ‘ARMR’, which strongly resembled the appellant’s own branding practices. The Court concluded that this conduct prima facie indicated an attempt to ride on the goodwill of Under Armour, and that a greater degree of distance was warranted when choosing a mark in proximity to a well-known brand.
Identical Goods, Overlapping Trade Channels
The Court rejected the conclusion that differences in theme or pricing meant different markets. It noted that both the parties manufactured and sold identical goods—T-shirts, hoodies, belts, and caps—under Class 25, and operated through the same trade channels, such as major online retailers. As per the Court, consumer preference for different designs would not alter the fact that the products competed in the same commercial space.
Interim Injunction Grant : Injunction Granted
Finding that the impugned marks bore phonetic and visual similarity to Under Armour’s trademark, that the goods were identical, and that the channels of sale overlapped, the Court concluded that there was a real likelihood of confusion. It allowed the appeal and issued an injunction restraining the respondents from using ‘AERO ARMOUR’, ‘ARMR’, or any other mark deceptively similar to ‘UNDER ARMOUR’ until the final disposal of the suit.
Citation: Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr., FAO(OS)(COMM) 174/2024 (H.C. Delhi May 23, 2025). Available at: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/111408615/, Visited on: 27/05/2025.
