Trademark Protection and Consumer Confusion: Delhi High Court Sides with Under Armour

Introduction TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT INDIA

In a significant ruling on May 23, 2025, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court delivered its verdict in Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr. (FAO(OS)(COMM) 174/2024), holding that the use of the mark AERO ARMOUR amounts to prima facie trademark infringement. The Court found that the mark was deceptively similar to UNDER ARMOUR, a globally recognized brand with a well-established presence in India.

This decision strengthens the legal position of brand owners looking to protect their trademarks against deceptively similar uses—even where competing parties operate under themes or market strategies that attempt to differentiate their offerings.

Background of the Case

Under Armour Inc., a U.S.-based sports apparel giant, entered the Indian market in 2017 via Amazon and established its first retail outlet in 2019. It holds several trademark registrations in India under Class 25 (clothing, footwear, headgear), among others.

The Respondents, Anish Agarwal and his company, began selling apparel under the brand name AERO ARMOUR and filed for registration of this mark. Under Armour opposed the application and filed a suit alleging infringement, passing off, and dilution of its brand.

In the initial ruling dated 29 May 2024, the Single Judge refused to grant an interim injunction against the Respondents, reasoning that there was no likelihood of confusion due to different design themes and target markets. Under Armour appealed.

Core Legal Issues

The appeal revolved around the following key legal questions:

1. Whether the mark AERO ARMOUR is deceptively similar to UNDER ARMOUR.

2. Whether the inclusion of the word “ARMOUR” gives rise to consumer confusion.

3. Whether the differentiation of product themes (sportswear vs. military-inspired casual wear) negates infringement.

4. Whether the Single Judge’s application of the anti-dissection and global appreciation rules was correct.

The Division Bench’s Analysis

1. Anti-Dissection Rule and Dominant Part of the Mark

The Court emphasized that the comparison of trademarks must be done holistically and not by dissecting individual components. It reaffirmed the anti-dissection rule, holding that while marks must be viewed as a whole, it is permissible to recognize that certain parts may dominate the overall commercial impression.

In this case, ARMOUR was found to be a dominant and distinctive component of Under Armour’s mark, and the similarity with AERO ARMOUR could not be ignored.

2. Visual, Structural, and Phonetic Similarity

The Court noted a high degree of phonetic and structural similarity between the marks. Both were composed of two non-hyphenated capitalized words, with “ARMOUR” being common. This was sufficient to raise a presumption of confusion in the minds of average consumers with imperfect recollection.

3. Strength and Reputation of the Senior Mark

Under Armour demonstrated extensive global and Indian use, significant advertising investment, and trans-border reputation. The Court relied on earlier rulings which establish that strong trademarks warrant stronger protection, as they are more vulnerable to unfair advantage by competitors.

4. Same Class of Goods

Both parties were found to be operating within Class 25, manufacturing and selling overlapping categories such as T-shirts, hoodies, and caps. The Court rejected the argument that sportswear and casual wear are distinct enough to eliminate confusion, particularly in the age of e-commerce where products are shown side-by-side in seach results.

5. Role of Design Themes and Pricing

The Court held that design elements like military imagery or patriotic taglines do not function as trademarks. These are not source identifiers and cannot override the confusing similarity between the core marks.

Additionally, a price differential (Under Armour products at ₹2000 vs. Aero Armour products at ₹799) was deemed insufficient to prevent confusion, especially given the possibility of initial interest confusion.

Conclusion of the Court

The Division Bench set aside the earlier Single Judge’s ruling and granted a limited injunction:

• The Respondents were restrained from using the mark "ARMR".

• They could not use “AERO ARMOUR” in prominent placement (e.g., across sleeves).

• They were barred from marketing themselves as a sportswear brand.

• They were allowed to use their device mark on limited fronts pending final trial.

This marks a crucial development in Indian trademark jurisprudence, particularly concerning initial interest confusion, trans-border reputation, and the scope of protection for well-known marks.

Implications for Brand Owners and Startups

• Protect Early: The judgment underscores the importance of registering trademarks and enforcing them proactively.

• Avoid Riding the Coattails: Adopting marks similar to well-known brands—even unintentionally—can lead to costly litigation and injunctions.

• Holistic Branding: Ensure your visual identity, naming strategy, and product placement don’t create a confusing commercial impression.

trademark infringement India,

Under Armour case India,

Aero Armour judgment,

Delhi High Court trademark,

consumer confusion IP law