Case: Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr.

Court: Delhi High Court – Division Bench

Decision Date: 23 May 2025

Overview

The Delhi High Court has granted an injunction in favour of Under Armour Inc. in a trademark infringement case concerning the marks “UNDER ARMOUR” and “AERO ARMOUR”. The Court set aside the earlier decision of the Single Judge, which had denied interim relief, and reaffirmed the correct application of four key doctrines in trademark law: Dominant Part Test, Anti-Dissection Rule, Global Appreciation Test, and Initial Interest Confusion. 

Background

Under Armour had approached the Court seeking to restrain the Respondents from using the mark “AERO ARMOUR” and associated branding. The Single Judge had declined to grant an interim injunction, holding that “ARMOUR” was not independently registered in India and the marks should be viewed as a whole. Under Armour appealed this order. 

The Division Bench reversed the earlier findings, ruling in favour of Under Armour and granting an injunction against the use of the impugned marks. 

Key Legal Doctrines Reaffirmed 

1. Dominant Part Test 

The Court held that while trademarks are assessed in entirety, it is permissible—and often necessary—to identify which part of the mark dominates the consumer’s perception. 

• “ARMOUR” was held to be a commercially significant part of Under Armour’s trademark. 

• The fact that it is not registered standalone in India was found irrelevant to the assessment of similarity. 

2. Anti-Dissection Rule 

The anti-dissection rule prevents a mechanical, part-by-part comparison of marks. However, it does not prevent courts from identifying which elements shape the overall impression. 

• The Single Judge’s comparison between “UNDER” and “AERO”, while ignoring “ARMOUR”, was found to be contrary to this rule. 

• The Court clarified that identifying the dominant portion is not inconsistent with viewing the marks as a whole. 

3. Global Appreciation Test 

The Court emphasized that trademark similarity must be assessed holistically, considering: 

• Visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity 

• The overall commercial impression 

• The distinctiveness of the earlier mark 

• The consumer’s imperfect recollection 

• The nature of the goods and how they are marketed

It was held that both parties operated in the apparel segment, often using the same distribution platforms, and targeting overlapping consumer segments. Differences in design themes or pricing were not sufficient to avoid confusion. 

4. Initial Interest Confusion / Transient Wonderment 

The Court reaffirmed that confusion at the initial stage, even if momentary, is sufficient to constitute infringement. 

• The consumer may experience what the Court referred to as “transient wonderment”. 

• Even if the confusion is resolved before purchase, the initial misleading impression is actionable.

Conclusion

This decision provides important clarity on how Indian courts will assess trademark similarity and confusion, especially in cases involving composite marks. Key takeaways include: 

• Dominant elements matter, even in whole-mark comparisons. 

• The anti-dissection rule is a safeguard against improper parsing, not a ban on evaluating commercial impact. 

• The Global Appreciation Test must be applied with full consideration of market realities. 

• Initial confusion—even if later resolved—is enough to establish infringement. 

This judgment reinforces the importance of consumer perception over technical or internal marketing intent and strengthens enforcement tools available to rights holders’ facing imitation through similar branding.