Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta held that anti dissection rule is not inconsistent with ascertaining if the competing marks are similar by taking note of the dominant parts. 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of Under Armour INC v. Anish Agarwal & Anr (2025). 

What was the Background of Under Armour INC v. Anish Agarwal & Anr (2025) Case?   

• The appellant, Under Armour, Inc., has filed an intra-court appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), challenging the order dated 29th May 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in an interim application. 
• The appellant had filed a suit for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off against the respondents, seeking an interim injunction to restrain them from using certain trademarks alleged to be deceptively similar to its registered trademarks, especially “UNDER ARMOUR.” 
• The Single Judge, through the impugned order, imposed limited restrictions on the respondents’ use of the impugned marks but refused to grant an ad interim injunction as prayed by the appellant. 
• The appellant contends that the learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the injunction, particularly by misapplying the doctrine of initial interest confusion, which the appellant argues should have been sufficient to establish a prima facie case of trademark infringement. 
• The appellant is a U.S.-based company incorporated in 1996, engaged in manufacturing and selling sports apparel, footwear, and related products, and has a presence in India since 2017, with its first retail store opening in New Delhi in 2019. 
• The appellant claims ownership of globally recognized trademarks including “ARMOUR,” “UNDER ARMOUR,” and “UA,” which are registered in India and other jurisdictions. 
• In India, the appellant has multiple trademark registrations under various classes, including Classes 9, 18, 25, 28, 35, 41, and 42, for marks such as ARMOURVENT, ARMOURBITE, ARMOURFLEECE, ARMOURBLOCK, HOVR, and UNDER ARMOUR. 
• Although the appellant does not hold registration for the standalone word “ARMOUR” in India, it owns such registrations in other countries including the U.S., Canada, the EU, and several Asian nations. 
• The respondents include a company incorporated in India and its director/promoter, who are engaged in the business of manufacturing and distributing clothing and footwear under the trademark “AERO ARMOUR.” 
• The respondents also operate a website www.aeroarmour.store for selling their products and have filed a trademark application for “AERO ARMOUR” under Class 25, which is currently opposed by the appellant before the Trademark Registry. 
• Despite the pending opposition proceedings, the respondents have been actively marketing and selling products under the impugned mark, prompting the appellant to file a civil suit along with an interim injunction application. 
• The Single Judge disposed of the interim application without granting the full relief sought, leading to the present appeal on grounds that the judge did not correctly apply the principles of trademark law and initial interest confusion. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Anti-Dissection Rule: 
  • The Delhi High Court reiterated that a trademark must be evaluated in its entirety and not by isolating its individual components.  
  • A composite mark’s protection cannot extend to individual elements unless those elements independently qualify for protection. 
• Dominant Part Evaluation Not Barred: 
  • While a trademark must be considered as a whole, it is permissible to evaluate dominant elements within composite marks to assess the overall similarity and potential confusion between competing marks. 
• Commercial Impression is Key: 
  • The overall commercial impression of a trademark is what matters in assessing similarity. 
  • Similarities between parts of marks are only relevant if they affect the commercial impression as a whole. 
• Permissible Emphasis on Dominant Elements: 
  • Courts may accord more or less importance to specific parts of a mark based on their distinctiveness and commercial significance, especially when evaluating composite marks. 
• Possibility of Multiple Dominant Parts: 
  •  A single trademark can have more than one dominant part. In this case, “ARMOUR” was claimed as dominant in both ‘UNDER ARMOUR’ and ‘AERO ARMOUR’, and its role in shaping commercial impression needed proper evaluation. 
• Failure to Address Dominant Feature ‘ARMOUR’: 
  • The lower court failed to analyze whether “ARMOUR” was the dominant component of the impugned mark, which was necessary for assessing overall similarity. 
• Comparison with STREET ARMOUR Case: 
  • The appellant cited a previous case where the court found ‘STREET ARMOUR’ deceptively similar to ‘UNDER ARMOUR’, reinforcing the argument that ‘ARMOUR’ is a significant and distinctive part of its brand. 
• Faulty Focus on Design and Product Category: 
  • The Single Judge erroneously focused on the t-shirt designs and attempted to draw a market segmentation between casualwear and sportswear without sufficient basis, which is not a reliable ground to negate confusion. 
• Strong Trademark Entitled to Greater Protection: 
  •  ‘UNDER ARMOUR’ is a strong mark with significant goodwill, warranting broader protection from similar competing marks such as ‘AERO ARMOUR’. 
• Same Class of Goods and Trade Channels: 
  • Both parties manufacture similar clothing and accessories under Class 25, and their products are sold through the same e-commerce platforms like Amazon and Myntra, making confusion more probable. 
• No Justifiable Market Segmentation: 
  • The assumption that the two brands cater to different market segments was unfounded.  
  • Clothing consumers may be influenced by brand themes like valour or weaponry but may still consider both products in the same purchasing context. 
• Initial Interest Confusion Doctrine Applied: 
  • The court emphasized that trademark infringement can occur even if the consumer is only confused initially (before purchase).  
  • Momentary confusion or initial interest based on mark similarity is sufficient to establish infringement. 
• Duration of Confusion Irrelevant: 
  • Even brief confusion at the initial stage (such as seeing the mark online) fulfills the condition of “likelihood of confusion” under Section 29(1), 29(2), and potentially 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. 
• Rejection of “Informed Customer” Argument: 
  •  The lower court’s view that customers would examine and recognize differences does not negate infringement if initial confusion still occurs. 
• Intentional Adoption of Similar Mark: 
  • Though respondent claimed to have coined “AERO ARMOUR” independently, the court noted that the respondent, being in the same industry, would reasonably be aware of the well-known “UNDER ARMOUR” mark, suggesting their choice of a similar mark was not wholly honest. 
• Proximity to Famous Marks Requires Greater Distance: 
  • New market entrants must maintain a greater degree of separation from strong and well-known trademarks. The closer a mark gets to a famous brand, the higher the risk and likelihood of infringement. 
• Thus, the Delhi High Court held that prima facie ‘AERO ARMOUR’ infringes the trademark rights of ‘UNDER ARMOUR’.

What is the Rule of Anti Dissection? 

• The Anti-Dissection Rule, as held by the Supreme Court in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001), mandates that a trademark must be considered as a whole and not dissected into individual parts for comparison. 
• The rationale for the rule is that an average consumer perceives a trademark by its overall commercial impression, not through scrutiny of its individual components. 
• In Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. (1959), the Supreme Court held that the trademarks “Glucovita” and “Gluvita” were deceptively similar despite the minor difference of the syllable “co.” The Court emphasized that the marks should be judged in their entirety. 
• In Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo (1962), the Court reiterated that a customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection could be misled by the overall similarity of “Amritdhara” and “Lakshmandhara,” even though a close comparison reveals differences. 
• In National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros Ltd. (1953), the Supreme Court ruled that a trademark may still be refused registration if it is likely to cause confusion or deception, regardless of the lack of exact resemblance. 
• The Rule of Dominant Feature requires identification of the most prominent or striking part of a mark, which may strongly influence consumer perception. 
• It was held by the Delhi High Court in the case of South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. General Mills Marketing Inc. (2014) that evaluating a mark’s dominant feature does not violate the anti-dissection rule, as long as the overall impression of the mark is taken into account. 
• The Court stated that it is inappropriate to focus only on one part of a composite mark while ignoring other elements; all elements should be considered in determining likely customer reaction. 
• In a referenced US case involving ‘JOSE GASPAR GOLD’ and ‘GASPAR’S ALE’, the Court held that both marks gave the commercial impression that the name “GASPAR” was the source identifier, thus leading to potential confusion. 
• The court in that case emphasized that assigning different weights to components of a mark depending on their commercial impression does not breach the anti-dissection rule.