Under Armour secures interim injunction in Delhi HC over ‘AERO ARMOUR’ trademark dispute

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has ruled that even brief confusion in the mind of a consumer is sufficient to constitute trademark infringement under Indian law. The order was passed in an appeal filed by American sportswear company Under Armour, Inc., which sought to restrain an Indian clothing manufacturer from using the mark "AERO ARMOUR".

As per a Bar & Bench report, in a judgment delivered on May 23 2025, a division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta set aside a single judge’s earlier order that had declined interim relief to Under Armour. The Court found that the marks "AERO ARMOUR" and "UNDER ARMOUR", though not identical, were deceptively similar when considered in their entirety.

“If the customer looking at the impugned marks associates the same with the appellant's marks even though for a brief period, the appellant's trademarks would be infringed... The duration of the confusion in the minds of the customer is not material,” the Court observed.

Under Armour, incorporated in the United States and based in Baltimore, Maryland, entered the Indian market in 2017 and opened its first retail store in New Delhi in 2019. It holds several trademark registrations in India, including for the marks ‘UNDER ARMOUR’, ‘UA’, and other ‘ARMOUR’ formative marks in Class 25 (covering clothing, footwear, and headgear). The company claimed that it had been using the ‘ARMOUR’ branding for over two decades and had developed considerable goodwill.

The Indian company, along with its promoter Anish Agarwal, had applied for registration of the ‘AERO ARMOUR’ mark in Class 25. The application was advertised in the Trademarks Journal in June 2022. Under Armour filed opposition proceedings and a trademark infringement suit, seeking to restrain the use of ‘AERO ARMOUR’, ‘AERO ARMR’, and other similar marks.

A single judge of the High Court initially disposed of the application with limited restrictions, rather than granting an injunction. This was challenged by Under Armour before the division bench.

In response, the respondents argued that their brand drew inspiration from aviation and military themes, pointing to the aeronautical background of the promoter. They claimed the designs and target markets were distinct from Under Armour’s.

However, the division bench applied the Initial Interest Confusion test and concluded that brief confusion at the pre-purchase stage was sufficient for establishing trademark infringement.

“The Initial Interest Confusion Test recognises that confusion in the minds of the customers arises only at the stage prior to consummating the purchase... The confusion, albeit limited to the initial stage, is sufficient to satisfy the condition of deceptive similarity as contemplated in Section 29 of the TM Act,” the Court held.

The bench also found that the single judge had incorrectly applied the anti-dissection rule, noting that the shared use of the word 'ARMOUR' should have been evaluated as part of the marks’ composite impression.

“The learned Single Judge appears to have approached the issue... by presuming that the word 'ARMOUR', which is common to the competing marks, was required to be excised... This is clearly contrary to the anti-dissection rule,” the bench held.

Emphasising the strength of Under Armour’s brand, the Court stated that the mark deserved greater protection due to its established global and Indian presence.

“Prima facie, in the present case, the appellant's trademark is a very strong mark, which has significant goodwill and therefore, it is necessary to extend a higher protection against competing marks...”

The bench also rejected the respondents’ attempt to distinguish between sportswear and casual wear within Class 25, noting that both parties’ products overlap in usage and distribution, especially on e-commerce platforms.

“The appellant's products are mainly apparels, which are commonly used as casualwear... Merely because some of the products are worn by sportspersons... does not change the nature of the appellant's products.”

“The appellant has placed record screenshots of Google searches... that show products from both the appellant and the respondents for purchase on e-commerce platforms.”

In its final observations, the Court found prima facie evidence of dishonest adoption.

“The respondents being in the business of apparel and clothing would have known about the appellant's Trademark 'UNDER ARMOUR' and its worldwide reputation... Notwithstanding the same, the respondents had decided to adopt a mark, which prima facie bears phonetic and visual similarity with the appellant's trademark.”

Accordingly, the Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Under Armour, restraining the respondents from using the contested marks until the suit is finally decided.

“In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are restrained from using the impugned marks or any other mark deceptively similar to the appellant's word mark 'UNDER ARMOUR' till the disposal of the suit.”

Under Armour was represented by Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar along with Advocates S Bansal, Rishi Bansal, Mankaran Singh, Kartik Malhotra, Rishabh Aggarwal and Ritik Raghuvanshi.