Arrow in India: Who Owns the Name, and What the Shirt Costs

Arrow has been sold in India since 1993, under a shirt name out of Troy, New York that the company selling it here dates to 1851. What a shopper in a Bengaluru mall is unlikely to know is that Arvind does not own it.

Its own filings say so. The other half is on the tag: of 87 listings read on 6 September 2026, 86 sold below the printed MRP.

Snapshot

Brand dated to

1851, Troy, New York; in India since 1993, by the parent’s own account

Company answerable in India

Arvind Fashions Limited, CIN L52399GJ2016PLC085595, trading through Arvind Lifestyle Brands Limited

Owned or licensed

Licensed. The 2020 rights-issue document names Arrow as a licensed brand

Licensor named in a filing

None

Price band in India

MRP ₹899 to ₹3,599; charged ₹422 to ₹3,099, over 87 listings on 6 September 2026

Country of origin

India on 41 of 43 declarations read; one Sri Lanka, one Bangladesh

Brand revenue

Not disclosed in any filing or presentation

Who owns Arrow, and who rents it

Arvind Fashions Limited put a rights issue to shareholders in 2020, and the Letter of Offer filed with the market regulator sorts its own brands into two piles. It describes “U.S. Polo Assn.”, “Arrow” and “Tommy Hilfiger” as “licensed brands operating under licensing agreements, while Flying Machine is our owned/self-created brand”. Those agreements, it adds, carry a “minimum sales commitment, minimum royalty payable or minimum advertising spent”.

The international brands distributed by us are not owned and are sold pursuant to long term agreements with brand owners.

The listing document filed when the company came to the exchange says the same in its risk factors: it “has licence to operate certain Brands in India”, Arrow among them, and a failure to renew or an early termination “will have an adverse impact on business operations and growth”.

Older corroboration exists, and it was decided. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board, on 30 November 2007, recorded Cluett, Peabody & Co. Inc. as registered proprietor of ARROW in class 25, and recorded the goods as “manufactured and marketed by M/s. Arvind Clothing Limited, Ahmedabad, as the licensed user of trade mark of the appellant”. It set aside the order under appeal and remitted the matter. A commercial mirror of the register still carries the class-25 ARROW mark, application 198635 of 25 October 1960, in Cluett Peabody’s name — what the register carries, rather than a filing anyone has read.

Now the limit, and it is a finding about how little a listed company must say. No Arvind Fashions document names the Arrow licensor — not the listing document, not the rights-issue document, not the annual reports. No term, no expiry, no word on exclusivity, no royalty rate.

That chain comes from the sellers’ own announcements. Arvind’s filings do not join it up, so this page names no company on the other side of the licence.

Renting is one of several routes a foreign-sounding label takes to an Indian shelf. Flying Machine, sold by the same company, is separated out in that same sentence as its own, self-created brand. Louis Philippe took a third route: a mark created by a British company and bought outright in 2000. U.S. Polo Assn. sits in Arrow’s pile, named on the same line.

Which company answers for Arrow in India

Two listed companies carry the Arvind name and they are different businesses. Arvind Limited, incorporated in 1931, makes denim, woven fabric and knits. Arvind Fashions Limited, incorporated on 5 January 2016, is the branded-apparel company and answers for Arrow.

That business was demerged out of Arvind Limited under a scheme sanctioned by the National Company Law Tribunal at Ahmedabad on 26 October 2018, appointed date 30 November 2018, and listed on 8 March 2019. Arvind Limited holds no stake in it, and its own 2025-26 annual report mentions neither Arvind Fashions nor Arrow.

For the year to March 2026, reported in May 2026, Arvind Fashions had revenue of ₹5,266 crore, up 14%, EBITDA of ₹705 crore and profit of ₹139 crore from continuing operations, across 1,025 exclusive outlets for all its brands. Arrow’s share is in none of it: no filing gives this brand a revenue, a growth rate or a store count of its own. Trading runs through Arvind Lifestyle Brands Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary and the seller of record on every Arrow listing read on Tata CLiQ. Arrow’s brand page claimed over 200 exclusive stores and more than 1,000 multi-brand outlets in 109 cities on 6 September 2026, with no date attached to the count.

What the label actually says

Under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, a pre-packed garment must declare a manufacturer or packer with a full address, the country of origin, the net quantity and an MRP inclusive of all taxes. Worth saying once: that declaration names who is legally answerable for the goods, not who sewed the garment.

Across 43 Arrow declarations read on 6 September 2026 — 27 on Tata CLiQ, 15 on Myntra, one on the brand’s own store — fifteen different companies are named. An Arvind entity appears on four: once as manufacturer, twice as packer, once as importer. Tata CLiQ alone names eight companies across its 27 listings, so the name changes style by style inside one shop rather than shop by shop. The addresses cluster in Karnataka.

Origin is not uniform. Of the 27 listings on Tata CLiQ, 25 declared India, one Sri Lanka and one Bangladesh; the brand’s own store read India, as did all 15 behind Myntra’s listings. Most Arrow garments are declared made in India, so no import duty sits inside those prices — but the shirt beside them may answer differently. Read the field rather than assuming it.

Fibre composition is published on every listing, and it is not always cotton. Three “Smart Satin” shirts at ₹2,399 MRP declare 60% acrylic, 31% polyester and 5% nylon; trousers run mostly 69% polyester and 29% viscose. Fabric weight in GSM is published nowhere, on any of the three channels.

What Arrow costs in India

Every figure below was read on 6 September 2026, as a logged-out shopper sees it, before coupons and bank offers.

Across all 87 listings, MRP of ₹2.02 lakh sold for ₹1.15 lakh — 43.1% below. Eighty-six of the 87 were discounted. The exception was a striped shirt on Tata CLiQ at ₹3,099 MRP selling for ₹3,099, and the shallowest discount anywhere else was 25%.

The channel ranking runs the opposite way to some of Arrow’s neighbours. Its own store was not the dearest place to buy: it cut 42.0% in aggregate against Tata CLiQ’s 38.2%, with Myntra deepest at 49.5%. It then stacks offers on top. On one shirt at ₹2,499 MRP, already sold at ₹1,499, the page offered a buy-one-get-one free. Two shirts on that offer come to ₹750 each, 70% below the printed MRP.

The marketplaces do the same. Tata CLiQ offered a members’ price of ₹1,458 on a shirt whose page advertised 30% off ₹2,499; a Myntra coupon took a ₹1,999 shirt from ₹999 to ₹699. The table above therefore ranks listed prices only. Trousers were cut harder than shirts — 42.2% against 35.1% on Tata CLiQ.

It is tempting to read a permanent markdown as simply how clothes are sold in India. On the same day, every Westside listing checked — ten on Tata CLiQ, eleven on its own site — sold at MRP. Its sale sections were built and empty that day rather than absent, so that is one day’s reading. A standing discount is still a choice somebody makes.

What the record holds

The advertising council’s published outcomes carry nothing against Arrow, and nothing against Arvind Fashions or Arvind Lifestyle Brands. Across the apparel businesses of four listed Indian groups only two matters appear at all, and both were not upheld. The council is a self-regulatory industry body rather than a statutory regulator, and an empty file here says more about a category that makes very few measurable claims than about any label in it.

On those records we found no regulatory action, no product recall, no advertising adjudication and no consumer commission order against Arrow. The only decided matter naming the brand is the 2007 trade-mark appeal above, about the mark rather than the clothes.

Buying Arrow in India

Common questions

How we research and verify brand audits: our methodology.

References

1. Arvind Fashions Limited, Letter of Offer, 2020 — the licensed-brand sentence and the royalty and sales obligations
2. Arvind Fashions Limited, Information Memorandum — the risk factor naming Arrow, and the demerger dates
3. Cluett Peabody & Co. Inc. v Super Threads (India), 30 November 2007 — the registered proprietor and the licensed user
4. Trade mark 198635, ARROW, class 25, read 6 September 2026 — a mirror of what the register carries
5. Arvind Fashions Limited, results to March 2026 — revenue, EBITDA, profit and the 1,025 outlets
6. Arvind Fashions, Arrow brand page, read 6 September 2026 — 1993, and the store and city counts
7. Business Standard, 17 December 2004 — the US$70 million purchase of the Arrow business
8. PVH Corp., 2 August 2021 — completion of the ARROW sale for US$223 million
9. Business Standard, 8 March 2019 — the listing date and the upper circuit
10. Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 — what a pre-packed garment must declare
11. Tata CLiQ, Arrow shirt, read 6 September 2026 — a declaration a reader can open, and the seller of record
12. Arrow official store, read 6 September 2026 — the brand’s own declaration, prices and stacked offers
13. Myntra, 36 Arrow listings, read 6 September 2026 — prices and coupon pricing
14. Advertising Standards Council of India, complaint outcomes, checked 6 September 2026 — nothing against Arrow or its parent