The Delhi High Court rules that even momentary customer confusion can prove trademark infringement under Indian law, citing the “AERO ARMOUR” case.
Subheading:
Momentary confusion in the mind of a customer is sufficient to establish trademark infringement under Indian law, the Delhi High Court has ruled, while passing an interim order to restrain an Indian clothing company from using the mark “AERO ARMOUR.”
Delhi High Court Clarifies Legal Threshold for Infringement
In a ruling that could redefine the threshold for proving trademark infringement in India, the Delhi High Court has held that even a momentary or initial confusion in the minds of consumers is sufficient to constitute a violation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court made this observation while granting interim relief in a dispute between Under Armour Inc., a U.S.-based sportswear company, and an Indian clothing firm using the name “AERO ARMOUR.”
Justice Anish Dayal, presiding over the matter, observed that “a consumer may not conduct a forensic examination” of trademarks, and if there exists even fleeting confusion during the purchasing decision, the claim for infringement stands established at a prima facie level.
“A slight possibility of confusion is sufficient. It’s the initial impression that counts,” noted the Court, adding that the Indian firm’s use of “ARMOUR” was not just phonetically similar but also evoked commercial association with the well-established global brand.
Under Armour’s Claims and the Court’s Interim Relief
The plaintiff, Under Armour, argued that the defendant’s brand “AERO ARMOUR” was deceptively similar to its own, particularly given its long-standing presence and recognition in both domestic and global markets. The use of a near-identical mark, especially in the same category of athletic and performance wear, was claimed to dilute the brand’s distinctiveness and mislead consumers.
The Court accepted this prima facie, noting that “ARMOUR” is the dominant element in both trademarks and that the prefix “AERO” was not enough to distinguish the two in the public’s eye.
Accordingly, the Court passed an interim injunction restraining the Indian entity from using the mark “AERO ARMOUR” until the case is finally adjudicated.
Legal Basis: Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
The ruling was grounded in Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which deals with infringement of registered trademarks. The provision explicitly covers scenarios where the likelihood of confusion among consumers exists — including where the infringing mark is similar to a registered trademark and is used in relation to similar goods or services.
Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that actual confusion is not required; the likelihood or possibility of confusion suffices.
Cadila Precedent: Consistency in Trademark Jurisprudence
This judgment aligns with the landmark decision in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., where the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of protecting even the less educated or less discerning consumers from being misled.
In Cadila, the Court warned that even initial interest confusion — the kind that occurs before an actual purchase is made — could be damaging to both the consumer and the brand owner.
“The law protects the public, including those who have imperfect recollection,” the Supreme Court had stated.
Implications for Legal and Commercial Stakeholders
This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s proactive stance in safeguarding well-known trademarks in India’s rapidly expanding retail and fashion sector. For brand owners, it’s a reminder that early enforcement of rights is essential. For emerging businesses, it underscores the need for careful trademark vetting to avoid costly litigation.
Legal professionals watching this space will note how courts are increasingly relying on consumer psychology and brand perception rather than just phonetic or visual comparisons.
For more updates on similar cases, visit our National News section and explore Insights on IP law and brand protection.
Catch expert legal discussions and verdict summaries on The Legal Observer YouTube Channel.
Internal Links Included:
- https://thelegalobserver.com/category/news/national/
- https://thelegalobserver.com/category/views/insight/
- https://thelegalobserver.com/
- https://www.youtube.com/@thelegalobserver
