Introduction:
In the case Crocs Inc v. The Registrar Of Trademarks New Delhi & Anr. [C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 82/2023, 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1208], the Delhi High Court presided over by Justice Tejas Karia dealt with an important trademark dispute concerning the footwear industry. The multinational footwear manufacturer Crocs Inc., a globally recognized brand established in 2002 and famous for its distinctive and innovative designs, approached the court seeking cancellation of the trademark registration granted to the mark “CROOSE” under Class 25 of the Trademarks Act, which pertains to footwear for human use. Crocs Inc. contended that the respondent, who had previously operated under different marks such as “JNG,” “AEROLITE,” and “RBS,” later adopted the mark “CROOSE” in bad faith in order to ride on the reputation and goodwill associated with the Crocs brand. The case was argued extensively by both sides, with Crocs Inc. represented by Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman along with his legal team, while the respondents were represented by Mr. Ashish K. Dixit and others. The decision of the High Court not only reaffirmed the principles of trademark law but also highlighted the judiciary’s role in protecting established brands from unfair competition and consumer confusion.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner Crocs Inc. raised several crucial arguments before the Delhi High Court. It was argued that the mark “CROOSE” bore a striking resemblance to “Crocs” in terms of visual appearance, phonetic structure, and overall impression. The petitioner emphasized that under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, no trademark shall be registered if it is deceptively similar to an already registered trademark for identical or similar goods. The mark “CROOSE,” according to the petitioner, was not just similar but deceptively so, thereby creating a strong likelihood of confusion in the minds of unwary consumers who might mistakenly believe that “CROOSE” products originated from or were associated with the Crocs brand.
The petitioner further argued that the respondent’s choice of mark was not coincidental but deliberate and mala fide. The respondent initially sold footwear under entirely different marks such as “JNG,” “AEROLITE,” and “RBS.” However, shifting later to “CROOSE,” which bore phonetic and structural similarity to “Crocs,” indicated an intentional attempt to capitalize on the established reputation and goodwill of Crocs. The petitioner also pointed out that the lettering style and placement of the impugned mark “CROOSE” mirrored the style adopted by Crocs, which further enhanced the likelihood of confusion among the purchasing public. Such imitation, it was contended, amounted to unfair competition and violated the statutory as well as common law rights of Crocs Inc. in its registered trademark.
In addition, the petitioner stressed that Crocs is an internationally renowned brand with a strong presence in India and worldwide. The goodwill and reputation of the brand were the result of significant investment, innovation, and consistent quality in the footwear market. Therefore, any unauthorized use of a deceptively similar mark would not only damage the petitioner’s brand value but also mislead consumers, who might unknowingly purchase substandard or unrelated products believing them to be associated with Crocs. The petitioner urged the court to cancel the registration of “CROOSE” to uphold the integrity of trademark protection and prevent consumer deception.
Arguments of the Respondents:
The respondents, on the other hand, contested the claims of Crocs Inc. and defended the validity of their mark “CROOSE.” They argued that the impugned mark was not deceptively similar to the petitioner’s mark, asserting that the differences between “Crocs” and “CROOSE” were sufficient to prevent confusion among consumers. According to the respondents, the two marks were structurally, visually, and phonetically distinct, and therefore could not be mistaken for one another by an average consumer with ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection.
The respondents also contended that the footwear market in India is diverse and competitive, with numerous brands operating under unique marks. Given this diversity, consumers are discerning and capable of distinguishing between different brands. The respondents emphasized that mere phonetic resemblance should not automatically lead to the conclusion of deceptive similarity, especially when there are other distinguishing features in the marks. They further argued that Crocs Inc. had failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that actual confusion had occurred in the marketplace due to the presence of “CROOSE.”
In addition, the respondents denied any mala fide intent behind the adoption of the “CROOSE” mark. They claimed that their choice of mark was independent and not influenced by the Crocs brand. The respondents urged the court to uphold the validity of their registration, stating that cancelling it would unfairly penalize them and deprive them of their right to conduct legitimate business in the footwear industry.
Court’s Judgment:
After carefully examining the arguments advanced by both parties and perusing the marks in question, the Delhi High Court delivered its judgment in favor of Crocs Inc. Justice Tejas Karia held that the mark “CROOSE” was deceptively similar to the petitioner’s mark “Crocs” and was therefore liable to be cancelled under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
The court noted that the placement of the impugned mark was identical to that of the plaintiff’s mark, and the overall visual appearance created a similar impression. Importantly, the court highlighted that both marks were phonetically similar, which posed a significant risk of consumer confusion. Since both marks were being used for identical goods under the same class—namely footwear—the possibility of consumers being misled was substantial.
Justice Karia observed that the impugned mark had been adopted in bad faith. The fact that the respondent had previously sold its products under entirely different marks such as “JNG,” “AEROLITE,” and “RBS,” but later chose to adopt “CROOSE,” indicated a clear attempt to take advantage of the reputation of Crocs. The court reiterated that trademark law aims to protect not only the rights of brand owners but also the interests of consumers, who deserve to make informed purchasing decisions without being deceived by deceptively similar marks.
The court further emphasized that deceptive similarity does not require exact replication of a mark; even similarity in sound, appearance, or overall impression can lead to confusion. The average consumer, who does not engage in a detailed comparison of marks, relies on imperfect recollection, and thus is highly susceptible to confusion in cases like this. Given these factors, the court concluded that the impugned mark “CROOSE” was indeed deceptively similar to “Crocs” and therefore violated Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Crocs Inc. and ordered the cancellation of the trademark registration granted to “CROOSE” in Class 25. This decision serves as a significant precedent in the field of intellectual property rights, reinforcing the principle that established brands must be protected from opportunistic imitation and that consumer interests must remain paramount in trademark disputes.