Court Recognizes Prior Use and Goodwill of New Balance's "N" Logos, Holding Passing Off Action Maintainable Despite Defendant’s Registered Trademarks
In a significant ruling dated July 13, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh, granted an interim injunction in favor of New Balance Athletics Inc., a global footwear and apparel giant, restraining Astormueller AG and its subsidiaries from using certain deceptively similar "n"-based marks in India. The case, registered as CS(COMM)/962 of 2025, revolves around the trademark dispute concerning the use of stylized "N" logos by New Balance and the allegedly confusingly similar "nu:beat" marks used by Astormueller.
New Balance, incorporated in Massachusetts, USA, and with a legacy dating back to 1906, asserted its longstanding prior use of the "N" mark on footwear since the 1970s in the USA and since 1986 in India. The plaintiff demonstrated extensive goodwill and reputation through decades of uninterrupted use, substantial advertising expenditure, widespread retail presence including flagship stores across Indian cities, and strong social media following. The "N" marks have become an integral part of New Balance’s brand identity, recognized globally and declared well-known trademarks by this Court in earlier judgments.
Astormueller AG, a Swiss corporation with Indian subsidiaries, entered the Indian market in 2024, adopting the "nu:beat" mark with a distinctive lower-case 'n' accompanied by a colon device. Despite securing trademark registrations in India and internationally for "nu:beat" and related device marks, the defendants were found to be using logos that bear a dominant resemblance to New Balance's "N" marks. The Court noted that the colon device does not sufficiently distinguish the marks, as the letter "n" remains the dominant and memorable element, likely to cause confusion among consumers with imperfect recollection.
Rejecting the defendants’ argument that their registrations shield them from infringement claims by another registered proprietor, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s authoritative decision in S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai. It held that the right of prior user in passing off remains unaffected by registration rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Thus, even where both parties are registered proprietors, a passing off action is maintainable to protect the goodwill of the prior user.
The Court analyzed key factors for deceptive similarity including visual and phonetic likeness, nature of goods (footwear), identical trade channels, and consumer base. Applying the “initial interest confusion” test, it observed that consumers could be misled into believing that Astormueller’s footwear bearing the impugned marks were variants or affiliates of New Balance’s products. The Court emphasized that the prior use and extensive goodwill of New Balance since the 1980s in India strongly favored granting the injunction.
Further, the Court dismissed the defendants’ contention that New Balance could not claim exclusive rights over the letter "N", highlighting that the plaintiff's "N" marks have acquired secondary meaning and distinctiveness through long use and promotion. The Court also rejected reliance on third-party registrations and commonality of the letter "N" in trade, underscoring that mere registrations without evidence of substantial use do not negate New Balance’s rights.
Balancing the equities, the Court found irreparable harm would ensue to New Balance’s goodwill and brand distinctiveness if the defendants were permitted to continue using the confusingly similar marks during the pendency of the suit. Accordingly, the Court restrained Astormueller and its Indian subsidiaries from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or marketing footwear under the impugned "n:" logo marks or any deceptively similar marks, pending final adjudication.
This ruling reaffirms the principle that trademark registration rights are subject to common law rights of prior users, and passing off remains a vital remedy to protect established goodwill from misrepresentation and confusion. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding brand identities against unfair competition, even when the alleged infringer holds statutory trademark registrations.
Bottom line:-
Trademark law - Prior and extensive use of N-marks by Plaintiff with established goodwill and reputation entitles Plaintiff to interim injunction against Defendants’ deceptively similar nu:beat marks despite Defendants’ registrations; passing off action lies even between registered proprietors under Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Statutory provision(s):
Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 11, 17(2)(b), 27(2), 28(1), 28(3), 29, 34
New Balance Athletics Inc v. Astormueller AG, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2941934
