Disposed

Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr.

Delhi HC23 May 2025FAO(OS) (COMM)/174/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Respondents in a disposed of trademark appeal sought 12 months to transition to a new brand and 6 months to exhaust inventory. The Division Bench declined to entertain the prayer in the disposed appeal, leaving respondents free to move the learned Single Judge, and referred the parties to mediation at DHCMCC.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; liberty to approach Single Judge; parties referred to DHCMCC on 30.05.2025.

Under Armour Inc. Vs Anish Agarwal & Anr. — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~SB-1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) (COMM) 174/2024

¶4

UNDER ARMOUR INC. .....Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. Mankaran Singh, Adv. Versus

¶6

ANISH AGARWAL & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao & Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Samik Mukherjee & Mr. Afzal B. Khan, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

¶9

O R D E R % 28.05.2025

¶10

CM APPL No.33943/2025

¶11

The respondents/applicants have filed the present application in the above-captioned disposed of appeal, inter alia, praying as under:

¶12

“a. Grant a period of at least 12 months, or any such period as the present Hon’ble Court may deem fit, to transition to the new brand by way of the activities mentioned in paragraph 4 (a) to (e);

¶13

b. Grant a period of 6 months to exhaust the inventory currently being held by the Respondents;”

¶14

Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants submits that respondents/applicants have taken a conscious decision to change their trade mark. He further submits that the respondents/applicants now sustain seventy-five [75] full time employees and directly supports 200-300 dependents. He submits that in the aforesaid context, the respondents/applicants seek some time for making the transition.

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/06/2025 at 19:09:21

¶17

The respondents/applicants also seek a period of six months to exhaust their inventory held by them.

¶18

We do not consider it apposite to examine the same in this disposed of appeal. However, the respondents/applicants will be at liberty to file an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge to seek such reliefs as are prayed in the present application.

¶19

It is clarified that if any such an application is moved by the respondents/applicants, the learned Single Judge would not be precluded from considering the same on account of the order passed in the present appeal.

¶20

The learned senior counsel also states that the respondents/applicants be granted liberty to approach the appellant/non-applicant for amicable resolution of the disputes.

¶21

The learned counsel for the appellant/non-applicant has joined the proceedings through videoconferencing, although he is not visible on screen. He also submits that the parties be referred to mediation for an amicable resolution of the disputes.

¶22

Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Medication & Conciliation Centre [ DHCMCC ] on 30.05.2025 at 3:00 PM.

¶23

The application is disposed of.

¶24

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶25

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶26

MAY 28, 2025 ‘gsr’ Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/06/2025 at 19:09:21

Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Siddhaant Mohta and Ors. Vs Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. and Ors.

Anil Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pr.Commissioner of Income TAX(CENTRAL)2 Vs Delhi Gurgaon Super Connectivity Ltd. & Anr.

Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs the Commissioner South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

S.K. Chauhan Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Shubhash Chandra & Ors. Vs Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.