JUDGMENT :

C. Hari Shankar, J.—

IA 1349/2023 [under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPC]

1. I have heard Mr. Rishi Bansal on behalf of the plaintiff and Mr. Chander Lall, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the defendant at considerable length and proceed, by this judgment, to dispose of I.A. 1349/2023, filed by the plaintiff, whereby interlocutory injunctive reliefs have been sought in this plaint.

2. To facilitate clarity, I would proceed to deal with the individual issues urged before me as and when they arise.

The plaintiff

3. The plaintiff UNDER ARMOUR, Inc (UA India) is a company incorporated in the US, with its registered office at Maryland, U.S.A. The plaintiff officially entered the Indian market in 2017, by selling its goods through Amazon and, in October 2018, the plaintiff incorporated its Indian subsidiary under the name Under Armour India Trading Pvt. Ltd. The first physical store of the plaintiff was opened in India in 2019. The plaintiff holds various registrations, inter alia, under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which stands enlisted in a tabular fashion in para 6 of the plaint. Among others, the mark UNDER ARMOUR stands registered in the plaintiff's favour in Classes 18, 25 and 28[of the NICE classification] with effect from 24th February 2009 and the mark UA stands registered in the plaintiff's favour in the same classes 18, 25 and 28 with effect from 12th January 2011. For the present, we need not concern ourselves with the other registrations held by the plaintiff.

4. Para 35 of the plaint sets out the receipts from sales effected by UA India during the period 2018 to 2021. During the financial year 2020-2021, these receipts are to the tune of Rs. 64 crores whereas, during the period April to August 2021, the receipts are to the tune of Rs. 24.7 crores.

5. I may note here, that one of the contentions which were advanced by the plaintiff to vouchsafe its reputation, and which is advanced before the Court in several cases, is that on a Google search being done of the word “ARMOUR”, the plaintiff's site was one of the first results which popped up. To my mind, such an argument is misconceived. The mere fact that the particular result may pop up on a Google search being done of a particular search thread cannot, without any other data, suffice to establish good will or reputation of a brand, especially vis-à-vis other brands. This Court cannot, even prima facie, gauge the market repute of a brand on the basis of how quickly it shows up on a Google search. Much would also depend on the search thread that is fed in. As such, the argument of the plaintiff, predicated on its being near the top of the results thrown up when a Google search for ARMOUR is done, does not, prima facie, appeal to me as testimony of market repute.

6. Nonetheless, given the sales figures of the plaintiff, which are not disputed, the fact that the plaintiff enjoys considerable goodwill and reputation even in the Indian market may, prima facie, be taken to be established.

7. The plaintiff also operates the interactive websites www.underarmour.com and www.ua.com.

Infringement

8. The plaintiff uses it's UNDER ARMOUR/UA/UNDR ARMR mark essentially on sports apparel. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the fact that the defendant is, on identical goods, using the marks “STREET ARMOR”, “SA” and “STRT ARMR”. While doing so, it is alleged that the defendant is using, for its “ARMOR” part of the mark, a font, style and lettering which is deceptively similar to that used by the plaintiff for “ARMOUR”. Even while using “STREET ARMOR” as a device, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant uses a similar font and lettering for “ARMOR” while using a disproportionately small font and lettering for STREET. This has been attempted to be demonstrated in para 54 of the plaint, in the following tabular fashion:

IMAGE

9. The defendant's argument, on the aspect of infringement, as advanced by Mr. Chander M. Lall, learned Senior Counsel, did not really concentrate on comparing the complete m