Does early-stage confusion matter, even if customers figure it out before purchase? This was the central question before the Delhi High Court, in Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr. (“Under Armour”). This decision has particular implications for businesses with a strong online presence, where extremely short attention spans can dictate consumption.

The case concerned a dispute between an American brand, Under Armour, and an Indian company, Aero Armour, both selling apparel. In the first instance, a Single Judge had refused interim relief, finding that consumer confusion, if any, was merely transient and resolved before purchase. Upon Appeal, the Division Bench (decision dated 23.5.2025 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 174/2024) overturned the Single Judge order, clarifying two key issues: the sufficiency of momentary confusion under the initial interest confusion doctrine, and the application of the anti-dissection rule. It held that even brief confusion, such as when a customer first notices the product, could affect purchasing decisions and must be taken seriously.

Initial interest confusion

Central to the Division Bench’s decision was the finding that where momentary confusion diverts consumer attention, this would satisfy the likelihood of confusion test and constitute actionable harm.

Most significantly, the Court in Under Armour rejected the precedent of Mountain Valley Springs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Forest Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd. (2024 SCC OnLine Del 3665), which had held that “transient wonderment” could not amount to infringement unless confusion persisted until purchase. The Division Bench found that this was an erroneous application of the Initial Interest Confusion Test, and that imposing such a requirement would defeat the purpose of the doctrine. Drawing on Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (2023 SCC OnLine Del 4809) and Grotrian-Steinweg v. Steinway & Sons (365 F. Supp. 707 (S.D.N.Y. 1973), the Court re-emphasized that the initial moment – when the consumer is drawn to a mark under a mistaken assumption – matters the most. In other words, “transient wonderment” is not inconsequential, and even fleeting misdirection can significantly benefit an infringer. The Court also pointed out that the Trademarks Act, 1999 does not specify the duration for which such confusion must last, and that duration itself is “not material”.

The Court also rejected the Single Judge’s assumption that merely because “trade channels differed for persons with different preferences”, there could be no likelihood of confusion. It further added that the presumption of “consumer sophistication”, or that informed customers would research differences, was misplaced, as “The sophistication of buyers… does not always assure the absence of confusion”.

Anti-dissection

The anti-dissection rule followed in trademark law generally discourages examining trademark components in isolation. A strict application of this rule had led the Single Judge to dismiss Under Armour’s claim over the “ARMOUR” component in its mark. However, the Division Bench offered a more nuanced approach. It clarified that although trademarks must be viewed holistically, dominant components may be given appropriate weight in evaluating consumer perception. It noted that, “It is not impermissible to evaluate the portions of the composite marks for the purposes of determination of the overall similarities between the competing marks”. This approach arguably better reflects marketplace realities, where consumers often latch onto prominent, memorable elements like “ARMOUR” when forming brand associations.

The decision

Applying these principles, the Court found a clear case of infringement, concluding that:

• Under Armour is a globally renowned trademark with inherent and acquired distinctiveness.
• ARMOUR, the dominant shared element, is visually and phonetically central to both marks.
• The goods in question – apparel – are identical.
• The average consumer, with imperfect recall, is susceptible to initial confusion.

The Court also found compelling prima facie evidence of dishonest adoption by the respondent. The use of “ARMR”, which mirrors a known Under Armour abbreviation, alongside nearly identical sleeve branding and prominent usage of the term “ARMOUR”, suggested a deliberate strategy to capitalize on Under Armour’s established reputation. The Court reiterated the principle from Midas Hygiene Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors. ((2004) 3 SCC 90) that when dishonesty in adoption was evident, injunctive relief must follow, regardless of delay.

The Court highlighted the increasing reliance on digital platforms and digital commerce, where brand differentiation happens in a fraction of a second, noting that even brief confusion triggered by visually or phonetically similar marks can cause real commercial harm.

Conclusion

The Under Armour verdict marks a major shift in Indian trademark law and sets up businesses for protection in a digital-first economy. The Court’s conclusion that momentary confusion is sufficient to establish initial interest confusion has made it potentially easier for brands to protect themselves when faced with digital-age infringement tactics. A flexible application of the anti-dissection rule also allows for a more practical approach to test similarity between marks, which courts may be encouraged to follow in future cases.