Delhi High Court Clarifies Anti-Dissection Rule in Trademark Infringement Cases

The Delhi High Court has recently provided significant clarity on the application of the anti-dissection rule in trademark infringement cases. In a case involving the global apparel brand Under Armour and an Indian company using the mark 'AERO ARMOUR', the Court emphasized that while composite trademarks should generally be compared as a whole, it is permissible to consider the dominant parts of these marks to ascertain the likelihood of confusion. This nuanced approach balances the protection of distinctive elements with the overarching principle of evaluating trademarks in their entirety.

Under Armour, the appellant, argued that its registered trademark 'UNDER ARMOUR' was distinctive, with 'ARMOUR' being the dominant and most recognizable part. The company contended that the respondent's use of 'AERO ARMOUR' was likely to cause confusion among consumers due to the similarity in the dominant element 'ARMOUR'. The respondent countered that 'ARMOUR' was a common word and not exclusive to Under Armour, suggesting that the marks were not deceptively similar when considered as a whole.

The single judge bench had initially declined to grant relief to Under Armour, adhering strictly to the anti-dissection rule, which prohibits dissecting composite marks to compare individual components. However, the division bench, comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta, overturned this decision. The Court acknowledged the importance of the anti-dissection rule but clarified that it does not preclude the examination of dominant parts of a trademark to assess overall similarity. The bench noted that the anti-dissection rule serves to prevent the undue emphasis on minor elements of a mark that could mislead consumers, but it does not bar the consideration of dominant features that contribute significantly to the mark's distinctiveness.

The Court further elaborated that the dominant part of a composite mark is often the most memorable and impactful element in the minds of consumers. In this case, 'ARMOUR' was deemed to be the dominant component of Under Armour's trademark. Therefore, the use of 'ARMOUR' in the respondent's mark 'AERO ARMOUR' could potentially lead to confusion, even if the marks were not identical in their entirety.

This ruling aligns with previous decisions, such as South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. General Mills Marketing Inc., where the Delhi High Court held that the anti-dissection rule does not impose an absolute embargo on considering the constituent elements of a composite mark. Instead, such consideration is permissible as a preliminary step in determining the likelihood of consumer confusion. The Court emphasized that the ultimate goal is to assess the overall commercial impression of the marks in question.

The Delhi High Court's decision underscores the need for a balanced approach in trademark infringement cases. While the anti-dissection rule ensures that trademarks are not unfairly dissected to claim rights over individual components, the rule of considering dominant features allows for the protection of the most distinctive and memorable parts of a mark. This approach helps prevent consumer confusion and protects the interests of trademark holders.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the anti-dissection rule and the consideration of dominant features are not mutually exclusive. By adopting a holistic approach that evaluates both the composite nature of trademarks and the prominence of their dominant elements, the Court has provided a framework that better serves the interests of consumers and trademark proprietors alike. This decision is a significant contribution to the evolving landscape of trademark law in India.