In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court held that even a brief or momentary confusion in the mind of a consumer is sufficient to establish trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
“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...” — Delhi High Court
A Division Bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta made this observation while granting interim relief to Under Armour, a US-based sportswear brand, in its appeal against an Indian company using the trademark ‘AERO ARMOUR’.
Read Also:- MP High Court Urges State to Frame Policy for Welfare of Children Born to Sexual Abuse Survivors
Earlier, a Single Judge had denied relief to Under Armour based on the Initial Interest Confusion Test, which states that if confusion is resolved before purchase, it may not amount to infringement. However, the Division Bench reversed this, stating that even initial confusion is enough under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
“The duration of the confusion in the minds of the customer is not material... even if it be momentary, it is sufficient to establish infringement,” the Court clarified.
The Court further emphasized that well-known trademarks like Under Armour are more vulnerable to such infringements, where new entrants may try to divert consumer attention by using deceptively similar marks.
“In some cases, it would be enough for a new entrant to get its foot in the door. Initial interest caused by similarity with a well-known mark is enough to invoke Section 29,” the Bench added.
The ruling also pointed out that both Under Armour and AERO ARMOUR were selling similar products—apparel and footwear—through the same online platforms, making it likely for consumers to be confused.
“A consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection may wonder if AERO ARMOUR is somehow related to Under Armour,” the Court observed.
Read Also:- P&H High Court: Cutting 10 Increments for 1-Day Absence by Police Officer is Disproportionate
As a result, the Court restrained the Indian company from using the impugned marks or any other mark deceptively similar to ‘Under Armour’ until the final disposal of the main case.
Appearance: For the Appellant : Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S. Bansal, Mr. Rishi Bansal, Mr. Mankaran Singh, Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Mr. Rishabh Aggarwal & Mr. Ritik Raghuvanshi, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Samik Mukherjee, Mr. Manosij Mukherjee & Mr. Abhishek Avabhani, Advs
Case Title: Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal & Anr
Case No.: FAO(OS) (COMM) 174/2024
Judgment Date: May 23, 2025
Bench: Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta
