Delhi High Court Directs Removal Of "CROOSE" From Trademark Registry On Grounds Of Deceptive Similarity To "CROCS"

The Petition before the High Court was filed by the Petitioner under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of the Registration of the Trade Mark ‘CROOSE’ (Impugned Mark) in Class 25, which was granted in favour of the second respondent.

The Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia held, “Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Impugned Mark ‘CROOSE ’ is deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s Mark ‘CROCS’ and is likely to cause confusion amongst consumers and the members of the trade. Therefore, the Impugned Mark is hit by Section 11(1)(b) of the 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.”

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Ashish K. Dixit represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioner company has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling a wide variety of footwear and allied and cognate goods, in addition to offering services in respect of the same. The Petitioner company was founded in the year 2002, and its founders coined the Trade Mark ‘CROCS’ (Petitioner’s Mark) under which the Petitioner’s products are sold. It was the petitioner’s case that the goods under the Trade Mark ‘CROCS’ are sold worldwide, including India for the last several years, and the said Trade Mark is inherently distinctive and is associated with the Petitioner.

The Petitioner was aggrieved by the registration of the Impugned Mark / Label ‘CROOSE’ and claimed that the adoption of the Impugned Mark by the second Respondent was dishonest and in bad faith. It was claimed that the impugned Mark was identical and/or deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s Marks.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that the Petitioner, being the owner of the Mark ‘CROCS’, was clearly a ‘person aggrieved’ and could maintain a cancellation petition under Section 57 of the Act. On a perusal of the Petitioner’s mark and the impugned mark, the Bench noted that the placement of the Impugned Mark was identical to that of the Plaintiff’s Mark.

The Bench further found that overall visual appearance of the Impugned Mark was similar to that of the Plaintiff’s Mark. Moreover, both the Marks were phonetically similar and were being used for identical goods under the same Class.

Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the Impugned Mark ‘CROOSE ’ bearing registration in Class 25 from the Register of Trade Marks.

Cause Title: Crocs Inc. v. The Registrar of Trademarks, New Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8660)

Appearance

Plaintiff: Advocates Ajay Amitabh Suman, Shravan Kumar Bansal, Rishi Bansal, Deepak Srivastava, Shruti Manchanda, D. Mehra

Respondent: Advocates Ashish K. Dixit, Shivam Tiwari, Umar Hashmi, Harshit Jain & Rahul Kumar

Click here to read/download Order