In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that even momentary confusion in the mind of a consumer is sufficient to establish trademark infringement under Indian law.

The judgment came while granting interim relief to American sportswear giant Under Armour, Inc., restraining an Indian clothing company from using the mark "AERO ARMOUR".

The decision was delivered on May 23, 2025, by a division bench comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta, which overturned a single judge's earlier order denying interim relief to Under Armour.

Under Armour, incorporated in the United States and operating globally in the sports apparel and footwear market, entered the Indian market in 2017 and opened its first store in New Delhi in 2019. The company holds multiple trademark registrations in India for marks such as ‘UNDER ARMOUR’, ‘UA’, and other ‘ARMOUR’-formative marks, particularly in Class 25, which covers clothing, footwear, and headgear.

The company initiated legal action against an Indian entity that was manufacturing and selling clothing under the ‘AERO ARMOUR’ brand. The respondent company, led by Anish Agarwal, had also applied for trademark registration of the mark in Class 25. Under Armour opposed the application and filed a suit seeking an injunction for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation.

The division bench ruled that the marks ‘AERO ARMOUR’ and ‘UNDER ARMOUR’, though not identical, were deceptively similar when viewed holistically.

“If a customer associates the impugned mark with the appellant’s mark—even if only briefly—it constitutes infringement. The duration of such confusion is irrelevant,” the Court observed.

Rejecting the single judge's reasoning, which was influenced by the “sophisticated consumer” doctrine drawn from the Mountain Valley Springs case, the bench held that the Initial Interest Confusion (IIC) test was the appropriate standard to apply.

“The IIC test acknowledges that confusion may arise at the pre-purchase stage. Even if clarity is restored before the transaction is completed, the initial confusion suffices to establish infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act,” the bench explained.

The Court also criticized the single judge's application of the anti-dissection rule, which improperly excluded the common word ‘ARMOUR’ from a holistic comparison of the two marks.

“Excising the common element ‘ARMOUR’ from the analysis is contrary to the anti-dissection rule. The marks must be evaluated in their entirety,” the Court clarified.

Under Armour argued that it enjoys significant global recognition, with ‘ARMOUR’ being a key component of its branding for over two decades. The division bench agreed that the company's mark enjoys strong goodwill and thus merits heightened protection.

“Prima facie, the appellant’s mark is a strong mark with considerable reputation. Competing marks that may exploit this goodwill require greater scrutiny and protection,” the Court said.

The respondents had claimed that their branding drew inspiration from aviation and military themes and that their products targeted a different market segment. However, the Court rejected this argument, holding that both parties operated in the same market category (Class 25) and used identical distribution channels, including e-commerce platforms.

“The appellant has submitted evidence showing that both sets of products appear in Google searches under the same category and are available on common e-commerce websites,” the Court noted.

The Court found prima facie evidence of dishonest adoption, citing the visual and phonetic similarities between the marks and the respondents' likely awareness of Under Armour’s global presence.

“The respondents, being in the apparel business, would reasonably have been aware of Under Armour’s brand and reputation. Despite this, they adopted a deceptively similar mark,” the Court stated.

Accordingly, the division bench set aside the single judge’s order and granted an interim injunction restraining the Indian company and its promoter from using the ‘AERO ARMOUR’ mark—or any other deceptively similar mark—until the final disposal of the suit.

Under Armour was represented by Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar, along with Advocates S. Bansal, Rishi Bansal, Mankaran Singh, Kartik Malhotra, Rishabh Aggarwal, and Ritik Raghuvanshi.