Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:2711

CS(COMM) 41/2023 Page 1 of 45

$~29

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CS(COMM) 41/2023, I.A. 1349/2023 & I.A. 4142/2023

UNDER ARMOUR, INC

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Gaurav Gogia, Mr. Rishi

Bansal, Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Mr. Rishabh

Gupta and Mr. Mankaran Singh, Advs.

versus

ADITYA BIRLA FASHION & RETAIL LTD. ..... Defendant

Through:

Mr. Chander M Lall, Sr. Adv.

with M. Ankur Sangal, M. Ankit Arvind, M.

Raghu Vinayak Sinha and Mr. Shashwat

Rakshit, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T (O R A L)

%

20.04.2023

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.

3.

The plaintiff

3.1

The plaintiff UNDER ARMOUR, Inc (UA India) is a company

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL

SINGH NEGI

Signing Date:23.04.2023

11:38:29

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:2711

CS(COMM) 41/2023 Page 2 of 45

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 28¹ with effect from 24^th February 2009 and the mark UA stands

registered in the plaintiff‘s favour in the same classes 18, 25 and 28

with effect from 12^th January 2011. For the present, we need not

concern ourselves with the other registrations held by the plaintiff.

3.2

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

2020-21, these receipts are to the tune of ₹ 64 crores whereas, during

the period April to August 2021, the receipts are to the tune of ₹ 24.7

crores.

3.3

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,

1of the NICE classification

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL

SINGH NEGI

Signing Date:23.04.2023

11:38:29

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:2711

CS(COMM) 41/2023 Page 3 of 45

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