📘 Introduction:
In a significant ruling on May 23, 2025, the Delhi High Court clarified that even brief pauses in consumer confusion suffice to establish trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. This judgment strengthens registered trademark protection in India.
🔍 Case Details:
Case Title: Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr.
Case No.: FAO(OS)(COMM) 174/2024
Court: Delhi High Court (Division Bench: Justices Vibhu Bakhru & Sachin Datta)
Judgment Date: May 23, 2025
📚 Background & Facts:
🔹 International sportswear brand Under Armour Inc. held several registered trademarks (e.g., UNDER ARMOUR, ARMOURVENT, ARMOURFLEECE) in Class 25.
🔹 Anish Agarwal & Anr launched a product line named 'AERO ARMOUR', marketed in the same class and on similar e-commerce channels.
🔹 The court previously dismissed interim relief, citing lack of standalone registration for "ARMOUR" and misuse of anti-dissection doctrine.
⚠️ Issues Before the Court:
- Does trademark infringement require lasting consumer confusion?
- Can 'ARMOUR' be considered the dominant element in 'UNDER ARMOUR'?
- Is a brief, initial confusion enough to satisfy Section 29 criteria?
🧭 Court’s Reasoning & Findings:
🔸 Even momentary confusion—where consumers might momentarily think the product is associated—is sufficient for infringement.
“If the customer looking at the impugned marks associates the same with the appellant's marks, even for a brief period, the appellant’s trademarks would be infringed.”
🔸 The 'anti-dissection' rule allows courts to focus on the dominant, distinctive components of a mark even while viewing it holistically.
Comparing 'ARMOUR' as the dominant common word is permissible.
🔸 The global appreciation test was followed — evaluating marks by visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity in the context of consumer recollection and e-commerce usage.
🔸 Both products belonged to Class 25 (apparels) and were sold via same online platforms, elevating the risk of customer confusion.
🏆 Judgment & Outcome:
The Division Bench overturned the earlier single-judge decision and granted interim relief to Under Armour, restraining Aero Armour’s infringing use.
A status-quo was restored, effectively halting AERO ARMOUR's usage pending final hearing.
✅ Key Takeaways for Businesses
🛑 Even brief confusion is enough for legal action under Section 29.
✔️ Focus on the dominant word or logo in your mark — it carries legal weight.
📦 Online platforms increase the risk of consumer mix-up—exercise caution.
⚠️ Consider pre-launch legal checks and interim injunction strategies.
🛡️ How SecureMyTM Can Help
- Conduct dominant element risk evaluations during trademark search
- Assist with interim injunction filings and cease-and-desist notices
- Draft enforceable brand names/logos to avoid potential conflicts
📲 Contact Us
🌐 www.SecureMyTM.com
📩 Email: support@securemytm.com
📌 Disclaimer:
This article provides general educational insights and does not serve as legal advice. For tailored legal guidance, consult our trademark attorneys at SecureMyTM.com.
