When comparing two brand names, should you look at them as a whole or focus on the most important, memorable word? This question lies at the heart of a major legal debate involving two key principles: the anti-dissection rule and the dominant part test.

A landmark case at the Delhi High Court, featuring global sportswear giant Under Armour, has provided a clear and powerful answer, reshaping how courts analyze trademark infringement for composite brand names.

Also Read : Keyword Advertising & Confusion: Decoding the MakeMyTrip vs. Booking.com Saga

Understanding the Dispute

The Brand at Stake:

Under Armour, a global sportswear leader, owns the registered trademark “UNDER ARMOUR” and a family of marks containing the word “ARMOUR” (such as ARMOURFLEECE and ARMOURVENT).

The Conflict:

An Indian seller began selling apparel under the names “AERO ARMOUR” and “AERO ARMR” online. Under Armour alleged this was a clear case of trademark infringement.

Also Read : Administrative vs. Judicial Routes to Well-Known Status: Lessons from Vistara and TAJ

The Legal Question: Anti-Dissection vs. Dominant Part

Two well-established principles of trademark comparison were at play:

• Anti-Dissection Rule: Compare the marks as a whole without breaking them into parts.
• Dominant Part Test: Recognize that consumers often remember and focus on the most distinctive part of a mark.

The Single Judge initially refused an injunction, saying the marks looked different when viewed in full.

Also Read : Dynamic Injunctions in the Digital Marketplace: Reliance’s Shield Against Online Brand Misuse

The Division Bench Ruling

On appeal, the Division Bench overturned the earlier decision, holding:

• ‘ARMOUR’ is the Dominant Part
  • Through extensive use, “ARMOUR” had become a strong source identifier for Under Armour’s brand.
  • The defendants had lifted this dominant part entirely, creating a strong likelihood of confusion.
• Anti-Dissection Still Applies — But With Nuance
  • Marks should be viewed holistically, but courts can give more weight to the dominant element when it drives consumer recall.
• Initial Interest Confusion Recognized
  • Even brief confusion at the point of first contact — especially in online shopping — is enough to constitute infringement.
  • Consumers could easily associate “AERO ARMOUR” with “UNDER ARMOUR” before realizing the difference, influencing purchase decisions.

Also Read : E-Infringement Exposed: The Landmark Amazon vs. Beverly Hills Polo Club Ruling and Its Broader Impact

Key Legal Principles from the Case

• Dominant Part Doctrine Strengthened: Courts can identify and protect the core element of a mark even without separate registration for that element.
• Initial Interest Confusion Matters: In fast-paced online markets, short-lived confusion still counts as infringement.
• Bad Faith Weighs Heavily: Intentional copying strengthens the case for injunctions and damages.

Why This Matters for Brand Owners

This ruling is a significant win for brand owners in India because it:

• Protects series marks and core brand elements.
• Offers stronger remedies against online copycats.
• Clarifies how courts will approach mark comparison in future disputes.

Conclusion

The Under Armour decision strikes a careful balance between the anti-dissection rule and the dominant part doctrine, reinforcing that while trademarks must be compared as a whole, the heart of the brand deserves the strongest protection.

For businesses, the message is clear: build and defend your brand’s dominant elements because in the eyes of the law, they matter most.

Author

Suresh Kumar is an Advocate at the Madras High Court and Managing Attorney at Unimarks Legal Solutions, Chennai. Since 2008, he has focused on trademark enforcement and litigation across the Madras HC IP Division, Commercial Courts, and District Courts in Tamil Nadu.

Disclaimer: The content provided here for Information purpose only; it shall not be construed as a legal advice. Last reviewed: August 2025.