Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
Background of the case
The case is before the Delhi High Court against Crocs Inc. The litigation, initiated by the USA, focuses on allegations that Indian footwear manufacturers were introducing products copying the design of Crocs’ distinctive foam clog.
Crocs argued that companies including Bata India, Liberty Shoes, Relaxo Footwear, Action Shoes, Aqualite and Bioworld Merchandising copied the shape, configuration and perforated design of its clogs. The company claims that these elements constitute a shape trademark or trade dress, potentially misleading consumers and taking advantage of Crocs’ global reputation.
former high court proceedings
Initially, on February 18, 2019, a single judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed all six passing off lawsuits at the preliminary stage, holding that Crocs could not claim passing off protection for the same configuration protected as an already registered design.
Reversal of High Court Division Bench
However, in July 2025, a division bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul, overturned the earlier single-judge decision, allowing Crocs’ lawsuits to proceed. This prompted Bata and Liberty to seek Supreme Court intervention.
Logic by Liberty Shoes
Liberty Shoes argued that the Division Bench had erred in law and misinterpreted the decision of a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Carlsberg Breweries A/S vs. Som Distilleries & Breweries Ltd.
The company said Carlsberg has clearly acknowledged that once a design is registered, its owner cannot claim rights over similar characteristics. A passing claim must include “something more” beyond the registered design, a broader trade dress or get-up.
Concerns over dual monopoly
The petition further argued that allowing Crocs’s claims would amount to a “double monopoly” by providing indefinite common law protection under trademark law for features that the Designs Act allows to be protected only for a limited period of time.
Liberty also argued that the High Court ignored Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, which explicitly excludes trademarks from the definition of design. The company said the court failed to consider the full bench judgment in Mohan Lal v Sona Paint & Hardware, which established that a design forms part of the goods, while a trademark is “something additional” that is used to denote trade origin.