Under Armour Inc vs. Anish Agarwal and Anr.

Recently, in an intra-court appeal filed by Under Armor Inc. (“Appellant”), a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court overturned a single judge’s decision that had declined interim relief to the Appellant. By way of quick background, the Appellant had initiated a suit against Anish Agarwal and his company (“Respondents”) alleging, inter alia, trademark infringement, seeking an interim order restraining the Respondents from using AERO ARMOUR and AERO ARMR (“impugned marks”) and other marks that are deceptively similar to the Appellant’s marks. However, the single judge disposed of the application with certain restrictions instead of granting the injunction.

The Appellant contended that, while it has not applied for registration of the standalone word ‘ARMOUR’ in India, it is the proprietor of various trademark and label registrations, inter alia, comprising the word ‘ARMOUR’ worldwide. The Appellant further stated that the overall impression of the impugned marks, is deceptively similar to its registered marks, including its word mark UNDER ARMOUR. The Appellant also argued that the single judge has misapplied the initial interest confusion test on the erroneous premise that there may be ‘transient wonderment’, but an informed customer would proceed to find out the differences between the products at the time of purchase.

While resisting the Appellant’s action, the Respondents contended that the Appellant does not have any rights in respect of the word ‘ARMOUR’ and if it is deleted from the respective marks, there is no similarity between them. Further, the Respondents tried defending the impugned marks by claiming that the designs are ‘inspired’ by military and Indian defence forces and therefore, their products cater to different markets and are distinct from the sporting apparel sold under the Appellant’s marks.

Upon considering the submissions made by the parties, the Division Bench held that the test of initial interest confusion was incorrectly applied by the single judge and opined that if the customer looking at the impugned marks associates the same with the Appellant’s marks, even for a brief period, the Appellant’s marks would be infringed. Further, the court stated that the single judge had applied the anti-dissection rule erroneously by removing the common word ‘ARMOUR’ for the purpose of comparing the rival marks instead of evaluating them as a whole. It also rejected the superficial distinction drawn by the Respondents between casual wear and sportwear and acknowledged the identical nature of goods. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the single judge’s decision and set aside the order.

Under Armour Inc vs. Anish Agarwal and Anr. [(FAO(OS) (COMM) 174/2024 & CM No.46175/2024 & 52564/2024, judgement dated May 23, 2025]

Click here to read the judgement copy.