Momentary Confusion Enough for Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court rules that brief consumer confusion is sufficient to establish trademark infringement, grants interim
By: : Kashish Singh
Update: 2025-05-26 05:15 GMT
Momentary Confusion Enough for Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court rules that brief consumer confusion is sufficient to establish trademark infringement, grants interim injunction in favor of Under Armour.
The Delhi High Court rules that momentary confusion in the mind of a customer is sufficient to establish trademark infringement. In a recent judgment, a division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta set aside an earlier single judge ruling that had declined interim relief to American sportswear giant Under Armour. The Court held that the competing marks "AERO ARMOUR" and "UNDER ARMOUR" were deceptively similar when viewed holistically.
The Court applied the Initial Interest Confusion test, recognizing that confusion in the minds of customers arises at the stage prior to consummating the purchase. The Court rejected the single judge's reliance on the "sophisticated consumer" argument and found that Under Armour's trademark deserved heightened protection due to its established reputation and strength. The Court also found prima facie evidence of dishonest adoption based on the similarity of marks and the defendants' knowledge of Under Armour's reputation.
The Court's decision emphasizes the importance of protecting trademarks in the Indian market. Under Armour, which has been present in India since 2017, has used its 'ARMOUR' and formative marks for over two decades and claims significant global recognition and reputation. The Court's grant of an interim injunction in favor of Under Armour is a significant victory for the company in its efforts to protect its trademark.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S.Bansal, Mr. Rishi Bansal, Mr. Mankaran Singh, Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Mr. Rishabh Aggarwal and Mr. Ritik Raghuvanshi, Advocates. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Samik Mukherjee, Mr. Manosij Mukherjee and Mr. Abhishek Avabhani, Advocates.