Delhi High Court Grants Relief To 'Crocs', Cancels Registration Of Deceptively Similar "Croose" Trademark
Granting relief to multinational footwear manufacturer Crocs, the Delhi High Court has ordered cancellation of trademark registration granted to mark 'CROOSE' in Class 25 which includes footwear for human use.Justice Tejas Karia found the CROOSE mark to be “deceptively similar” to the US-based footwear brand's Crocs.The bench observed, “the placement of the Impugned Mark is identical...
Granting relief to multinational footwear manufacturer Crocs, the Delhi High Court has ordered cancellation of trademark registration granted to mark 'CROOSE' in Class 25 which includes footwear for human use.
Justice Tejas Karia found the CROOSE mark to be “deceptively similar” to the US-based footwear brand's Crocs.
The bench observed, “the placement of the Impugned Mark is identical to that of the Plaintiff's Mark. Additionally, the overall visual appearance of the Impugned Mark is similar to that of the Plaintiff's Mark. It is further noted that both the Marks are phonetically similar and are being used for identical goods under the same Class.”
The suit was filed by Crocs Inc which began operations back in 2002. It claimed that the Respondent adopted the CROOSe mark in bad faith in as much as, the latter earlier sold its products under the Marks 'JNG', 'AEROLITE' and 'RBS', however, it later adopted the CROOSE mark to ride upon goodwill of Crocs.
It was contended that the lettering style used in the impugned mark is identical to that of Crocs and is likely to cause confusion amongst unwary consumers.
The Respondent contended that the impugned mark is not deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's Mark as it is structurally, phonetically and visually different from the same.
The High Court on perusing both the marks observed that the impugned mark is deceptively similar and is therefore hit by Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act, which prohibits registration of a Trade Mark that is deceptively similar to a Trade Mark, which is already on the register in respect of identical or similar goods.
As such, it allowed the petition.
Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Shravan Kumar Bansal, Mr. Rishi Bansal, Mr. Deepak Srivastava, Ms. Shruti Manchanda & Ms. D. Mehra, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, Mr. Shivam Tiwari & Mr. Umar Hashmi, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Harshit Jain & Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocates for R-2.
Case title: Crocs Inc v. The Registrar Of Trademarks New Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1208
Case no.: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 82/2023