Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR
In the silent war of brand identities, Under Armour Inc., the global athletic wear behemoth, scripted a resolute victory in the Delhi High Court, affirming the power of even momentary confusion in establishing trademark infringement. This ruling sets a defining precedent, shielding renowned trademarks from the deceptive shadows of imitation, however fleeting they may be.
The Legal Battlefield: A Clash of Titans in Brand Identity
The courtroom turned into an arena where brand authenticity faced the subtle duplicity of phonetic mimicry. The central question before the Hon’ble Division Bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta was straightforward yet layered in legal complexity: Can a moment’s confusion in a consumer’s mind constitute trademark infringement?
Under Armour, represented by Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar, argued that the respondent’s use of “AERO ARMOUR” and the abbreviation “ARMR” bore such visual and phonetic similarity to its registered wordmark ‘UNDER ARMOUR’ that even a transient association would dilute its hard-earned brand equity.
The Judgement: Even Momentary Confusion is Infringement
In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court answered with unwavering clarity: yes.
“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.” — Division Bench
This pronouncement etched a golden principle into Indian trademark jurisprudence: duration of confusion is immaterial. What matters is the fact of confusion — if the average customer, possessing imperfect recollection, momentarily believes there’s a connection between the infringing mark and the original, infringement stands established.
Under Armour’s Global Identity: A Brand Built on Sweat and Grit
Before diving deeper, it’s important to understand what Under Armour represents.
Founded in 1996 by Kevin Plank, a former University of Maryland football player, Under Armour revolutionized athletic wear with its moisture-wicking performance fabric. From humble beginnings in a grandmother’s basement to becoming a $5 billion global brand, the journey was forged with relentless innovation and iconic branding.
The brand’s identity is built on performance, endurance, and resilience— values symbolized by its robust and instantly recognizable name. “UNDER ARMOUR” is more than just two words stitched into fabric; it’s a psychological promise of grit, protection, and power.
Why ‘AERO ARMOUR’ Was a Dangerous Shadow
In this case, Anish Agarwal & Anr., the respondents, used the mark “AERO ARMOUR”, including across the sleeves of apparel in a manner starkly reminiscent of Under Armour’s design.
The phonetic structure, visual layout, and the deliberate use of “ARMR” (a shortened form used by Under Armour) raised suspicion of intentional imitation.
The Court observed that:
“The respondents being in the business of apparel and clothing would have known about the appellant’s trademark ‘UNDER ARMOUR’ and its worldwide reputation.”
This wasn’t just a coincidence — it was, in the Court’s eyes, a strategic move to ride the coattails of a global brand.
Understanding Trademark Law: The Power of Section 29
The Court’s decision leaned heavily on Section 29(1), 29(2), and 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which collectively establish that:
- A registered trademark is infringed when there is unauthorized use of a mark identical or deceptively similar to it;
- Likelihood of confusion, even at a pre-purchase stage, is sufficient;
- And well-known marks enjoy enhanced protection under the law.
The judgment reaffirmed that “initial interest confusion”, where the consumer’s attention is captured by the infringing mark even before an actual purchase, satisfies the test of infringement.
Brand Value Is Built Over Decades, Diluted in Seconds
Under Armour’s legal team laid emphasis on the emotional and reputational equity associated with its brand. It’s not just the millions spent on marketing, but the decades of trust, painstaking product innovation, and global consumer goodwill that form the bedrock of the brand.
A moment’s deception from a sound-alike or look-alike brand isn’t harmless — it bleeds trust and dilutes decades of credibility.
“In the present case, the respondents’ choice of the impugned mark does, prima facie, indicate that it had, in fact, attempted to get closer to the appellant’s registered trademark than what may be permissible.”
The Bench made it clear: those who mimic a strong brand must maintain a larger distance, because the stronger the brand, the greater the responsibility of distinction.
Implications of the Ruling: A New Dawn in Trademark Protection
This judgment will echo across boardrooms and legal chambers for years to come. It serves as a stern warning to new entrants seeking to capitalize on the goodwill of established brands.
For Brands:
- Be vigilant. Monitor even the subtlest phonetic or visual imitations.
- Invest in global trademark registrations.
- Document your brand’s usage, distinctiveness, and market presence — it can be pivotal in court.
For Entrepreneurs:
- Treading close to known trademarks is not just legally risky — it’s creatively bankrupt.
- Build original identities. The courts are watching.
For Legal Professionals:
- This ruling strengthens the “likelihood of confusion” standard.
- It clarifies that intent to deceive isn’t essential—confusion alone is enough.
- It signals a shift towards stronger protection for well-known international trademarks in Indian law.
A Moral Victory: Protecting the Essence of Innovation
The Court’s words cut through legal jargon and resonated like a poetic tribute to originality:
“It may be sufficient for a new entrant to merely attract the customers of a well-known brand… It is not necessary that the customer must necessarily be deceived in buying the product.”
This is where the soul of the judgment lies — protecting not just logos and words, but the very spirit of entrepreneurship that Under Armour embodies.
Final Ruling: A Blow to Deceptive Branding
In its closing words, the Court restrained the Respondents from using the impugned marks or any other deceptively similar variant until the suit’s final disposal. The verdict is more than a legal triumph; it’s a victory of ethics over exploitation, of authenticity over mimicry.
Conclusion: Under Armour’s Victory Is a Win for Every Original Thinker
This judgment doesn’t just belong to Under Armour. It belongs to every startup founder, every designer, every dreamer who dares to build something distinct, bold, and true. It is a reminder that the law stands guard — not just over words and logos, but over the blood, sweat, and stories behind them.
“In the war for attention, if your echo resembles another’s voice too closely — even for a second — you’ve already lost your right to speak it.”
Judgement: Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR
15 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What was the Under Armour trademark case about?
The case involved Under Armour Inc. alleging trademark infringement by the Respondents who used the mark “AERO ARMOUR” and “ARMR”, which were claimed to be deceptively similar to Under Armour’s registered trademark “UNDER ARMOUR”.
2. Which court handled the Under Armour trademark case in India?
The case was heard by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, consisting of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta.
3. What did the Delhi High Court rule in Under Armour’s favor?
The Court ruled that even momentary confusion in the mind of an average consumer is sufficient to establish trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
4. Why was the phrase “momentary confusion” significant in this case?
Because it set a precedent that even a brief association between an infringing mark and a well-known trademark (like Under Armour) amounts to infringement, even if the customer later realizes the difference.
5. What is “initial interest confusion”?
This refers to a situation where a consumer’s initial attention is captured by a mark that resembles a known trademark, even if they don’t ultimately buy the product thinking it is the same. This form of confusion is enough to claim infringement.
6. What sections of the Trade Marks Act were cited?
The Court referenced Section 29(1), 29(2), and 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which address infringement and the rights of trademark owners.
7. What evidence did the Court consider in favor of Under Armour?
The Court considered the phonetic similarity, visual resemblance, the use of abbreviations like “ARMR”, and the manner of branding which was nearly identical to Under Armour’s design.
8. Who represented Under Armour in this case?
Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar led the legal representation for Under Armour, supported by a team of experienced lawyers.
9. What was the Court’s view on the Respondents’ intention?
The Court remarked that, given the similarity and awareness of Under Armour’s global reputation, the Respondents’ choice of mark appeared “less than honest”.
10. What does this ruling mean for new brands in India?
New brands must ensure they do not adopt names, logos, or styles that resemble established trademarks, as even unintentional similarities can lead to legal consequences.
11. Can a brand be sued even if the consumer ultimately identifies the difference?
Yes. The Court clearly stated that even if a consumer figures out the difference later, the initial confusion is still enough to prove infringement.
12. What is the significance of “average intelligence and imperfect recollection” in trademark law?
This is a legal standard used to assess likelihood of confusion—meaning the law doesn’t expect consumers to be experts, only reasonably aware and average in their judgment.
13. What was the final outcome of the appeal?
The Delhi High Court allowed Under Armour’s appeal, set aside the earlier order, and restrained the Respondents from using the infringing marks until final disposal of the suit.
14. How does this case benefit global brands operating in India?
It reinforces that Indian courts will protect the integrity of international trademarks, especially when there is substantial brand recognition and goodwill involved.
15. What precedent does this ruling set in Indian trademark law?
The ruling strengthens protections for well-known trademarks and emphasizes that even a momentary association or confusion can be enough to claim infringement, thus offering robust safeguards for brand owners.
Import and Sale Second-Hand Branded Goods Is Legal – Delhi High Court Rules Registration of Numeric Trademarks allowed – Delhi High Court Haldiram Success Story From Bikaner Bhujia to Global Snack Empire Registration of Numeric Trademarks allowed – Delhi High Court
Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR, Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR, Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR, Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR, Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR, Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR, Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR, Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR, Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR, Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR, Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR, Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR, Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR, Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR, Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR, Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR, Trademark Infringement Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR
