Crocs Inc vs The Registrar Of Trademarks
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 82/2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8660
Name Of Court: High Court Of Delhi
Hon’ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
Order Date: September 26, 2025
Facts
This case is about a company called Crocs Inc, which makes and sells footwear, asking the court to cancel a trademark owned by another party. Crocs Inc started in 2002 in the United States and created the brand name “Crocs” for its shoes. The company sells many types of shoes for men, women, and children, with over 300 styles that are popular around the world, including in India. In India, Crocs works through a local company in Gurgaon, Haryana, and sells its products in stores, online, and on websites like Ajio, Tata Cliq, and Myntra. Crocs owns the website crocs.com and Indian sites like shopcrocs.in and crocs.in. The company has registered its “Crocs” trademark in India for different classes like 9, 14, 18, 25, 35, and 10.
The problem started when Crocs found out about another trademark, a logo that looks like “Croose”, registered under number 3409214 in class 25 for footwear, owned by Respondent No. 2. Crocs believes this mark is too similar to its own and is being used dishonestly to copy its success. Respondent No. 1 is the government office that handles trademarks, and Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the “Croose” mark. Crocs says it has built a lot of goodwill with its brand since 2002, and the similar mark could confuse people.
Procedural Details
Crocs Inc filed a petition in the Delhi High Court under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, to cancel the “Croose” trademark. Section 47 allows removal of a mark if it’s not used properly, and Section 57 lets the court correct or cancel entries in the trademark register. The case also had an application numbered IA No.3113/2023, likely for some related relief. The petition was heard by Justice Tejas Karia. Respondent No. 2 was given several chances to file a reply and written arguments but did not do so. On April 23, 2025, the court closed their right to file these documents. However, the court still allowed Respondent No. 2’s lawyer to make oral arguments during the hearing. Lawyers for Crocs presented their side, showing evidence like sales records, registrations, and photos of products. The Registrar of Trademarks, as Respondent No. 1, was represented but did not oppose much, as their role is more administrative.
Dispute
The main issue was whether the “Croose” trademark should be cancelled because it is too similar to Crocs’ “Crocs” mark. Crocs argued that “Croose” is identical or deceptively similar in look, sound, and style, and is used for the same kind of products, like shoes. They said Respondent No. 2 adopted it in bad faith to benefit from Crocs’ popularity, as Respondent No. 2 used to sell under other names like “JNG”, “AEROLITE”, and “RBS” but switched to this similar one. Crocs claimed this could confuse customers into thinking “Croose” products come from Crocs, violating Section 11(1)(b) of the Act, which stops registration of marks that are likely to deceive or confuse because they are similar to existing marks for similar goods. They also said the mark is not distinctive and should not have been registered under Sections 9 and 11. Respondent No. 2 argued that “Croose” is different in structure, sound, and look, and that it was properly registered after following the rules, so it should stay.
Reasoning
The court started by confirming that Crocs is the owner of the “Crocs” trademark in India and sells its products widely here, so it is a “person aggrieved” under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which means it has the right to ask for cancellation. The judge looked at photos of the products side by side. Crocs’ shoes have the “Crocs” name placed in a certain way, and “Croose” products have a similar placement and style. The court said the marks look similar overall, sound alike when spoken, and are for the same class of goods, footwear in class 25. This makes “Croose” deceptively similar to “Crocs”, which could confuse people in the market. The court relied on Section 11(1)(b) of the Act, which says a trademark cannot be registered if it is so similar to an earlier mark for the same or similar goods that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion. The judge noted that to keep the trademark register clean and fair, such confusing marks should be removed.
Decision
The court agreed with Crocs and allowed the petition. It ordered the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel and remove the “Croose” mark, registration number 3409214 in class 25, from the register. The register must be updated, and the website changed within four weeks. A copy of the order was to be sent to the Registrar by email for action. The case and any pending application were closed.
Disclaimer
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
