The Delhi High Court has ordered the cancellation of a footwear trademark registered in the name of Croose, after finding it deceptively similar to global footwear giant Crocs. Justice Tejas Karia delivered the ruling on September 26, 2025, allowing the plea filed by Crocs Inc., the US-based footwear giant.
Background
Crocs Inc., founded in 2002, has built a strong presence in India through its subsidiary Crocs India Pvt. Ltd., headquartered in Gurgaon. The company owns several registrations of the “CROCS” mark across different classes under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Its shoes and accessories are sold in exclusive outlets, multi-brand retail chains, and online platforms like Myntra, Tata Cliq, and Ajio.
Read more:- Delhi High Court Sets Aside CRPF Constable’s Dismissal, Orders Fresh Inquiry Over Natural Justice Violation
In 2018, another company (Respondent No. 2 in the case) secured registration of a mark under Class 25, the same category covering footwear. Crocs alleged that this rival mark was not only identical in lettering style but also placed on products in a manner that mirrored Crocs’ own branding. According to the petition, this imitation was deliberate and intended to “ride on the goodwill” Crocs had established.
Respondent No. 2 initially sold shoes under names like “JNG,” “AEROLITE,” and “RBS,” but later shifted to the disputed mark. The company failed to file written submissions despite multiple opportunities, though its counsel was allowed to make oral arguments.
Court’s Observations
The bench carefully compared the two marks and found them too close for comfort. Justice Karia observed:
“The placement of the impugned mark is identical to that of the petitioner’s mark. The overall visual appearance and phonetic similarity make it likely to cause confusion.”
Read more:- Delhi High Court Upholds Cancellation of Gift Deed, Says Love and Affection Implies Duty of Care for Elderly
The Court also emphasized that Crocs was clearly an “aggrieved party” under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act and therefore entitled to seek cancellation. The judge noted that under Section 11(1)(b) of the Act, no trademark can remain on record if it is deceptively similar to an already registered one in the same class of goods.
Crocs’ lawyers had argued that consumers, particularly casual buyers, could be easily misled into believing that the rival products were linked to the global brand. The Court appeared to agree with this concern, stressing the need to “maintain the purity of the Register of Trade Marks.”
Concluding the matter, Justice Karia ruled in favour of Crocs. The order reads: “The impugned mark is deceptively similar to the petitioner’s mark ‘CROCS’ and is likely to cause confusion amongst consumers and members of the trade. Therefore, the impugned mark deserves to be cancelled.”
The Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the contested registration (No. 3409214, Class 25) from the official records within four weeks. It also instructed that the online database of the Trade Marks Registry be updated accordingly.
Case Title: Crocs Inc. vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 82/2023 & IA No.3113/2023
