Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Under Armour files trademark infringement lawsuit against Md. apparel company

Under Armour has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Armor & Glory LLC, another Maryland-based athletic apparel company, alleging that company’s name is “confusingly similar” to its own.

Such lawsuits are nothing new for Under Armour, but last week’s filing appears to be the first against a fellow business headquartered in Maryland, court records show.

Under Armour has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Armor & Glory LLC, another Maryland-based athletic apparel company, alleging that company’s name is “confusingly similar” to its own.

Under Armour has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Armor & Glory LLC, another Maryland-based athletic apparel company, alleging that company’s name is “confusingly similar” to its own.

Upper Marlboro-based Armor & Glory markets itself as a faith-based apparel business; according to its website, the company’s shield logo was designed “to represent God’s strength and protection.”

Like Under Armour, Armor & Glory also sponsors football camps and features NFL players and other athletes in online ads and social media, according to Under Armour’s lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Baltimore.

Armor & Glory’s use of its name and its website, armorglory.com, could suggest to consumers a relationship between the two companies and “dilute the distinctiveness and value” of the Under Armour name, according to the lawsuit.

“Without Under Armour’s authorization and approval, [Armor & Glory] has been offering, selling, and promoting clothing, including athletic/performance clothing for men, women, and children, and accessories (including wristbands) under the “Armor & Glory” and “Armorglory” names and marks,” the lawsuit states.

Under Armour owns the rights to multiple trademarks that amount to variations on the company’s name, such as “Baby Armour” and “ArmourFit,” according to the complaint.

“These Armour-formative marks have been used and promoted individually and/or together, and consumers have come to associate the Armour portion of the marks with UNDER ARMOUR,” the suit states.

Terrance Jackson, Armor & Glory’s CEO, did not respond to a phone call or email Monday seeking comment on the lawsuit.

Past conflicts

The Armor & Glory lawsuit is not the first time Under Armour has taken issue with another company’s use of a similar name. In 2012, Under Armour settled a lawsuit with Energy Armor Inc., a Florida-based company that makes silicone “negative ion” bracelets.

Under Armour objected to Energy Armor’s name and its use of the slogan “Protect Your Body,” arguing that it was too similar to its “Protect This House” tagline. Energy Armor now uses the slogan “Shield Yourself,” according to its website.

Under Armour similarly sued California-based sports beverage maker Body Armor Nutrition LLC, which led to a confidential settlement in 2013.

Under Armour also has taken aim at larger, more high-profile companies such as Nike Inc. and Skechers U.S.A. Inc., alleging in suits against both companies that they infringed on Under Armour’s “I Will” advertising campaign.

Trademark application rejected

When Armor & Glory filed a U.S. trademark application for “athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms,” Under Armour opposed the application before the federal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the lawsuit states.

The board entered a judgment in Under Armour’s favor in February and refused to register the Armor & Glory mark. But Armor & Glory has continued to use the name and infringe on Under Armour’s trademark, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit requests an order directing Armor & Glory to destroy all products and promotional materials that use the name of the company, pay Under Armour for any profits the company received by using the name Armor & Glory, transfer the domain name “armorglory.com” to Under Armour and pay $100,000 in statutory damages for registering and using that domain name.

Under Armour also is seeking unspecified punitive damages and a permanent injunction stopping Armor & Glory from using or registering the trademarks.

Douglas A. Rettew, an attorney representing Under Armour, did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment on Monday. Rettew is with Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP in Washington, D.C.

The case is Under Armour Inc. v. Armor & Glory LLC, 1:15-cv-02323-JFM.

 


About Lauren Kirkwood

Lauren Kirkwood covers the business of law beat at The Daily Record.