Trademark law plays a crucial role in safeguarding brand identity, ensuring that consumers are not misled and that businesses can reap the benefits of the goodwill they have built. In the footwear industry, where brand recognition significantly influences purchasing decisions, disputes over deceptively similar marks are common. Delhi High Court’s 2025 ruling in Crocs Inc. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. provides a detailed examination of whether the mark ‘Croose’ infringes upon the established trademark ‘Crocs’.
The Court’s judgment is significant as it not only reinforces the scope of protection available to well-known brands but also reiterates the importance of preventing confusion in the marketplace.
Factual Background
Crocs Inc., founded in 2002 in the United States, is a global brand recognised for its distinctive footwear. The company holds several trademark registrations for the mark ‘CROCS’ in India across multiple classes, including Class 25 (footwear).
Its products are sold through exclusive stores, retail outlets, and leading e-commerce platforms such as Myntra, TataCliq, and Ajio, as well as through its dedicated domain names like crocs.com and shopcrocs. in.
The dispute arose when Crocs learned that Respondent No. 2 had obtained registration for the mark ‘Croose’ in Class 25 under Registration No. 3409214.
Crocs contended that ‘Croose’ was phonetically, visually, and structurally similar to ‘Crocs’, and its use was likely to mislead consumers into believing an association between the two.
Crocs filed a cancellation petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking the removal of ‘Croose’ from the register of trademarks.
Arguments of the Petitioner (Crocs Inc.)
Prior Adoption and Goodwill
Crocs argued that it was the prior user and adopter of the mark, having introduced it in 2002 and registered it in India as early as 2005–2006.
Through continuous and extensive use, the brand had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation, with the public directly associating the mark ‘Crocs’ with its products.
Deceptive Similarity and Bad Faith
The petitioner contended that the mark ‘Croose’ was deceptively similar in appearance, sound, and placement on footwear to ‘Crocs’.
Crocs alleged that the adoption was not bona fide, but rather a deliberate attempt to capitalise on its goodwill. Respondent No. 2 previously marketed products under unrelated marks like JNG and AEROLITE before switching to ‘Croose’, indicating mala fide intent.
Likelihood of Consumer Confusion
Since both marks were used in respect of identical goods (footwear), Crocs argued that unwary consumers could easily assume an association, leading to confusion and deception in the marketplace.
This, according to Crocs, violated Section 11(1)(b) of the Act, which bars registration of marks deceptively similar to existing ones.
Lack of Distinctiveness
The petitioner further claimed that ‘Croose’ was not inherently distinctive, failing to distinguish Respondent No. 2’s products from those of Crocs, making its registration barred under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act.
Arguments of the Respondents
Respondent No. 2’s reply submissions were limited since its right to file a written statement was closed due to delays. However, oral arguments were advanced:
Structural and Phonetic Difference
Counsel argued that ‘Croose’ was structurally, phonetically, and visually different from ‘Crocs’. Hence, no likelihood of confusion existed.
Due Process in Registration
The respondent maintained that the mark had undergone due examination and was validly registered under the Act, making cancellation unwarranted.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court carefully examined the competing claims, applying settled principles of deceptive similarity and consumer confusion.
1. Comparison of Marks
The Court undertook a side-by-side comparison of Crocs’ products and those of Respondent No. 2.
It noted:
- The placement of the mark ‘Croose’ on footwear mirrored that of Crocs.
- The visual impression created by both marks was substantially similar.
- The marks were phonetically alike — ‘Crocs’ and ‘Croose’ sounded sufficiently close to confuse.
2. Identical Class of Goods
Both marks were registered in Class 25 (footwear). Since the goods were identical, even a lower threshold of similarity could lead to confusion.
3. Likelihood of Confusion
The Court emphasised that in trademark law, it is not necessary for actual confusion to be proved — a likelihood of confusion is sufficient for cancellation. Here, the overlapping visual, phonetic, and commercial elements satisfied that threshold.
4. Statutory Provisions Applied
Section 11(1)(b): Prohibits registration of marks deceptively similar to existing ones in respect of identical or similar goods. The Court held ‘Croose’ fell within this prohibition.
Section 57: Provides for rectification of the register where a mark wrongly remains on it. Since ‘Croose’ was deceptively similar, the Court ordered its cancellation.
5. Need to Maintain Purity of the Register
The Court reiterated that trademark registers must remain “pure” and free of marks that could mislead the public. To protect consumer interest and the petitioner’s goodwill, cancellation was warranted.
Judgment
The Court held that ‘Croose’ was deceptively similar to ‘Crocs’ and thus likely to confuse consumers. It directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove ‘Croose’ (Reg. No. 3409214, Class 25) from the register within four weeks.
Legal Principles Reinforced
- Test of Deceptive Similarity: The ruling confirms that deceptive similarity is judged holistically — looking at phonetic, visual, and structural resemblance, along with the nature of goods and class of consumers.
- Consumer Confusion as the Core Concern: Even the possibility of an average unwary consumer being misled is sufficient for cancellation. Actual evidence of confusion is not necessary.
- Bad Faith Adoption: The Court acknowledged that prior use of unrelated marks before adopting a similar mark indicates mala fide intent to trade upon another’s goodwill.
- Purity of Trademark Register: Maintaining the integrity of the register is a matter of public interest, beyond just the rights of the parties.
Broader Implications
- For Brand Owners: This judgment strengthens the hands of established brands like Crocs. It sends a message that even seemingly minor variations (like an additional syllable or letter change) will not protect copycats if confusion is likely.
- For Consumers: The decision protects consumers from “passing off” scenarios, ensuring they purchase products from the intended source without deception.
- For Trademark Law in India: The ruling aligns Indian jurisprudence with global standards of protecting well-known marks, emphasising the importance of preventing dilution and ensuring distinctiveness.
Conclusion
Delhi High Court’s ruling in Crocs Inc. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. demonstrates how Indian trademark law protects established brands against deceptively similar marks. The Court concluded that using ‘Croose’ for footwear did indeed infringe upon the established trademark ‘Crocs’, leading to cancellation of the mark.
The judgment underscores three key takeaways:
- The test of deceptive similarity remains consumer-centric.
- Goodwill and prior use are powerful shields for global brands operating in India.
- The purity of the trademark register is paramount for both businesses and consumers.
Ultimately, the decision reaffirms that even minor tweaks in spelling or phonetics cannot shield infringers when the likelihood of consumer confusion persists.