On 13 July 2026, the Delhi High Court had to decide whether a Swiss footwear group could sell sneakers under a lower-case ‘n’ followed by a colon, and still say it wasn’t trying to look like New Balance. Justice Jyoti Singh’s answer, at the interim stage, was a qualified no. The judgment is a useful read for anyone advising on letter marks, logo variants, or the recurring question of whether a registered trademark can still be restrained through a passing off action. Here’s a breakdown of the facts, the arguments, and the reasoning.
Background: N-marks vs. n:marks
Struggling to understand Trademark Law? Read our complete Trademark Law Guide.
New Balance Athletics Inc., the US footwear company tracing its history to the 1906 New Balance Arch Support Company, sued Astormueller AG (a Swiss corporation) and its two Indian subsidiaries over their NUBEAT sneaker line. New Balance’s case rested on its family of “N-marks”: the classic diagonal N device (registered in India since 1987), the shaded N logo (registered in Classes 18 and 25 since 1997), and a later N variant registered in 2007.
Astormueller’s NUBEAT range, launched in India in April 2024, carries several device marks built around a lower-case ‘n’ followed by a colon (stylised as n:), including a circular badge version. Astormueller’s position in response to trademark examination reports had been that the colon isn’t punctuation at all. It represents the letter ‘B’, making the mark a stylised “n” plus “B”. That admission would come back to hurt them later in the judgment.
New Balance said it first learned of NUBEAT in April 2025 after spotting the footwear on Myntra and on nubeat.com, sent a cease-and-desist notice, and then filed suit along with cancellation petitions against four of Astormueller’s Indian registrations. This order deals only with the interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the main suit is still pending.
Registration vs. Registration: Why Infringement Was a Dead End
Both sides held Indian trademark registrations for their respective marks in Classes 18 and 25. That matters because Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 says that where two parties hold registrations for identical or nearly resembling marks, neither can enforce infringement against the other. Those rights only bite against unregistered third parties. Astormueller leaned hard on this, plus the Supreme Court’s ruling in S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai on the point.
New Balance didn’t seriously contest that Section 28(3) blocked its infringement claim. Instead, it pivoted the whole case to passing off, a common law remedy that survives regardless of the defendant’s registration status. Justice Singh agreed this was the right move, relying on the same Syed Mohideen judgment, which had already worked through the interplay between Sections 27(2), 28(3) and 34 of the Act and concluded that passing off rights, being common law rights, aren’t extinguished by anyone’s registration. The Court also cited Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks for the same proposition under English law, and the Division Bench’s recent line of authority in Western Digital Technologies v. Geonix International (SLP dismissed by the Supreme Court in May 2026) reaffirming that a registered mark can still be restrained on passing off grounds.
This is worth flagging for practice: registration is a shield against infringement claims, not against passing off. Where a defendant’s registration is genuinely vulnerable to cancellation (as Astormueller’s was here, given pending rectification petitions), passing off remains fully available and doesn’t need to wait for the registration to be cancelled first.
Comparing the Marks: A Split Result
This is the part of the judgment worth pinning to a wall. The Court didn’t treat “the NUBEAT marks” as one undifferentiated set — it went mark by mark.
Astormueller’s portfolio included four variants: the plain n: logo, a circular badge version of the same, and two composite word marks reading “n: nu:beat” and “nu:beat” in stylised script. New Balance’s marks were the diagonal N, the shaded N, and the block N, plus the classic running-shoe device mark.
The Court’s finding: the two composite word marks (“n: nu:beat” and “nu:beat”) were not deceptively similar to New Balance’s N-marks, there was enough additional matter (the full word “nu:beat”) to distinguish them. But the two standalone logo marks, the bare n: and its circular badge counterpart were held deceptively similar to the N-marks, applying the anti-dissection rule and looking at overall commercial impression rather than isolating the colon.
The reasoning on the colon is the most interesting bit of the judgment. Astormueller argued the colon was a distinguishing “fanciful device” and that the marks should be read phonetically as “n-colon” rather than plain “n”. The Court rejected this on two grounds:
There’s also a quieter but important finding buried in paragraph 15: at the outset of the suit, Astormueller had already given an undertaking not to use the bare standalone n device (without the colon), apparently conceding, at least tactically, that this version was too close to the New Balance N for comfort.
The Passing Off Analysis: Goodwill, Misrepresentation, Damage
Having cleared the infringement/registration hurdle, the Court worked through the classical trinity from Reckitt & Colman (the “Jif Lemon” case), as adopted in Indian law through Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah: goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage.
Goodwill. New Balance’s evidence here was extensive and, frankly, overwhelming, revenue and advertising figures from 2013 to 2024, social media following in the millions, celebrity and athlete endorsements, IPL sponsorship visibility, and two prior Delhi High Court judgments (Jitender Kumar and New Balance Immigration) declaring the shaded N logo, NEW BALANCE, and NB as well-known marks under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act. A well-known mark finding from an earlier case doesn’t just help on paper, it becomes usable precedent in the next dispute, and it clearly did the heavy lifting here.
Misrepresentation. The Court applied the “initial interest confusion” doctrine, drawing on the Division Bench decisions in Under Armour v. Anish Agarwal and Madan Lal Purushottam Das Foods v. B.L. Agro Industries. The test isn’t whether a consumer remains confused at the point of final purchase, it’s whether they’re placed in a state of “wonderment” about a possible connection between the brands at the moment they first encounter the goods. Identity of goods (footwear, sold through overlapping channels including Myntra) lowered the bar further: where goods are identical, even a modest degree of mark similarity can generate actionable confusion.
The Court also picked up on how Astormueller placed the n: mark on the actual shoes visually, in a manner the Court found comparable to how New Balance displays its own N-marks on footwear, as reinforcing the inference of a deliberate, not innocent, adoption.
Damage. Following the standard position that likelihood of damage suffices and actual proof of diverted sales isn’t required, the Court found the risk of dilution to the well-known N-marks made out.
Rejected Defences
Three defences got specific and fairly thorough treatment, each worth remembering for future briefs:
“No monopoly over a single letter.” Astormueller invoked Relaxo Footwears v. XS Brands (the ‘X’ device mark case) and J.R. Kapoor v. Micronix India. The Court distinguished both in Relaxo, the plaintiff itself had disclaimed any monopoly over the bare letter, and the parties were trading under separate house brands rather than the letter device standing alone. Here, New Balance’s N-marks had, on the evidence, acquired secondary meaning through decades of exclusive and extensive use, comparable to McDonald’s golden arches or the Hermès “H” device marks where a simple letter or shape has become a source identifier in its own right.
“Common to the trade.” Astormueller’s search report from a private platform (Mike Legal) listing other third-party ‘N’ registrations was given no weight. The Court reiterated the settled line from Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India and Express Bottlers Services v. Pepsico, a bare list of Register entries proves nothing about actual market use, and a defendant relying on “common to trade” must show significant business turnover by those third parties, not just that their marks exist on paper. A trademark owner isn’t expected to sue every small user of a similar mark to preserve its rights, and failing to do so doesn’t concede the point to a later, larger infringer.
Prior use. Astormueller’s own written statement admitted that its nu:beat marks were used in India only from April 2024, despite registrations dating to 2021–2022. New Balance’s use in India traces to 1986, with a formal registration from 1987. Applying the “first in the market” test from Neon Laboratories v. Medical Technologies, prior use trumped Astormueller’s earlier registration date, registration, the Court reiterated, doesn’t create rights; it merely recognises rights that already exist at common law (Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar).
Also Read: SAKTHI vs SHAKTI: Lessons on Trademark Rectification
The Order
The injunction that emerged is narrower than New Balance’s full prayer. Astormueller and parties acting on its behalf are restrained, for the duration of the suit, from manufacturing, selling, or advertising footwear under:
or any other mark deceptively similar to New Balance’s N, shaded N, block N, or running-shoe device marks. The two composite “nu:beat” word marks were not injuncted. The Court found them sufficiently distinct given the additional wording.
As always with an ad interim order, the findings are recorded as prima facie observations only and won’t bind the trial court at final hearing.
Case Title: New Balance Athletics Inc. v. Astormueller AG and Ors. Citation: 2026:DHC:5573; CS(COMM) 962/2025 Court: High Court of Delhi Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh Date of Decision: 13 July 2026
