Trademark Disputes in India: Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr. – A Landmark Delhi High Court Ruling

 Trademark Disputes in India: Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr. – A Landmark Delhi High Court Ruling

Authored by Vijaytha Legal Associates – Experts in Intellectual Property Litigation

Case Citation:
Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr., FAO(OS)(COMM) 174/2024
Delhi High Court – Division Bench Judgment dated 23.05.2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Datta

At Vijaytha Legal Associates, we regularly analyse evolving jurisprudence in Indian trademark law. One such recent and significant decision is the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench ruling in Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr., which highlights the strength of composite marks, the role of initial interest confusion, and the modern approach to comparative trademark analysis under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

🔍 Background of the Dispute

The case stems from an intra-court appeal filed by Under Armour Inc., a globally reputed American brand in sportswear, against the rejection of its plea for an ad interim injunction by a Single Judge in a pending trademark infringement suit. The brand alleged infringement and passing off by Indian respondents who were using the marks “AERO ARMOUR” and “AERO ARMR” in Class 25 (clothing and footwear).

The appeal, a key event closely followed by Vijaytha Legal Associates in the domain of IP litigation, sought to restrain the respondents from using marks deceptively similar to “UNDER ARMOUR.”

🧾 Key Facts

• Under Armour entered India in 2017 via Amazon and launched its retail store in 2019.

• The brand holds multiple registrations for “UNDER ARMOUR,” “UA,” and other composite marks like “ARMOURVENT,” “ARMOURFLEECE,” etc.

• The respondents used “AERO ARMOUR” on their products and ran a website <www.aeroarmour.store>.

• Despite opposition filed against their trademark application, the respondents continued usage, prompting Under Armour to sue.

As Vijaytha Legal Associates often advises in such disputes, brand owners must proactively enforce their rights to avoid dilution and misappropriation.

⚖️ Appellant’s Arguments

The appellant contended:

• The impugned marks are deceptively similar in structure, sound, and visual impression.

• The use appeared dishonest, with the intent to free-ride on Under Armour’s goodwill.

• Identical nature of goods and shared e-commerce channels increased the likelihood of consumer confusion, especially at lower price points.

These arguments reflect a textbook strategy in trademark litigation — a focus area of Vijaytha Legal Associates, especially in digital retail contexts.

⚔️ Respondents’ Defence

The respondents argued:

• The word “ARMOUR” was not individually registered in India.

• “AERO” and “UNDER” are dissimilar both phonetically and visually.

• The theme and branding of their products reflected military inspiration, tied to personal history rather than imitation.

❓ Key Legal Issues Identified

1. Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the strength of the appellant’s mark due to a lack of standalone registration for “ARMOUR.”

2. Application of Global Appreciation Test and Initial Interest Confusion Test.

3. Nature of goods and similarity in marketing channels.

4. Determination of dishonest adoption by the respondents.

🧑‍⚖️ Observations by the Division Bench

In a move praised by practitioners at Vijaytha Legal Associates, the Division Bench reversed the Single Judge’s decision and clarified several key aspects of Indian trademark law:

• Anti-Dissection Rule: While a mark must be seen as a whole, it's permissible to evaluate dominant parts to assess overall similarity.

• Strength of Mark: “UNDER ARMOUR” is a well-known, strong mark deserving broader protection. The court emphasised that strong marks cast a long shadow.

• Visual & Phonetic Similarity: Both marks are two-word, non-hyphenated, uppercase names ending in “ARMOUR”, leading to prima facie similarity.

• Consumer Perspective: An average Indian buyer, with imperfect recollection, could easily confuse the origin of goods, especially on online platforms.

• Initial Interest Confusion: Borrowing from U.S. jurisprudence, the court highlighted how confusion at first glance is sufficient to establish infringement.

This ruling aligns with the modern, global approach to brand protection and underscores the importance of composite trademark enforcement — an area of deep expertise for our team at Vijaytha Legal Associates.

🧵 Final Verdict

• The Division Bench set aside the impugned order.

• The respondents were restrained from using “AERO ARMOUR,” “AERO ARMR,” or any deceptively similar marks during the pendency of the suit.

🏛️ Implications and Commentary by Vijaytha Legal Associates

This judgment reinforces several critical themes in trademark law:

✅ The importance of evaluating marks holistically but sensitively to dominant elements.
✅ The need for courts to weigh consumer psychology and market realities, especially in the online retail space.
✅ Recognition of Initial Interest Confusion as a valid ground in Indian jurisprudence.

At Vijaytha Legal Associates, we believe this case is a powerful precedent for brand owners to challenge strategic imitation and brand dilution, even if certain components of their marks are not registered independently.

For expert consultation on trademark prosecution, brand enforcement, and IP litigation, connect with Vijaytha Legal Associates, your trusted partner in protecting ideas, marks, and reputation.