Supreme Court Revived Crocs Inc against Indian Footwear Companies: The Supreme Court today dismissed petitions filed by Bata India and Liberty Shoes challenging the Delhi High Court’s July 2025 decision that had revived Crocs Inc. USA’s passing off suits against several Indian footwear manufacturers, including Bata India Ltd, Liberty shoes ltd, Relaxo, Action Shoes, Aqualite, and Bioworld Merchandising.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe declined to interfere with the High Court order, observing, “We are not inclined to entertain this plea. The Delhi High Court has merely restored the suits for consideration by the trial court. We, however, make it clear that the trial court of the single judge shall consider the matters uninfluenced by any observations made by the division bench or by the dismissal of these SLPs. Question of law kept open.”

The litigation stems from Crocs’ allegation before the Delhi High Court that several Indian manufacturers had copied the shape, configuration, and perforated design of its foam clogs, features that Crocs claims as its trade dress or shape trademark. The company argued that such imitation misleads consumers and exploits Crocs’ global reputation. [Also Read - Supreme Court Verdict on Governors’ Assent: Elasticity or Erosion of Federalism?]

In February 2019, a single-judge bench of the High Court had dismissed all six passing off suits at the preliminary stage, holding them not maintainable on the ground that Crocs could not seek passing off protection for product configurations already protected as registered designs.

(Passing off suit is a legal action that prevents one party from misrepresenting its goods or services as those of another, in a manner that causes damage to the established business's goodwill and reputation.)

However, in July 2025, a Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul of Delhi High Court overturned that finding, restoring Crocs’ suits for trial.

This led Bata and Liberty to approach the Supreme Court. Before the apex court, Liberty Shoes argued that the Division Bench had misinterpreted the Full Bench ruling in Carlsberg Breweries A/S v. Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd., which held that once a design is registered, its proprietor cannot assert passing off rights over the same features without showing “something more” beyond the registered design.

Liberty Shoes was represented by Advocate Saikrishna Rajagopal of Saikrishna & Associates, who contended that allowing Crocs’ claim to proceed would effectively grant it a “dual monopoly”, extending perpetual trademark protection to features meant to receive only time-limited protection under the Designs Act.

Liberty further submitted that the High Court ignored Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, which excludes trademarks from the definition of a design, and failed to properly apply the Full Bench ruling in Mohan Lal v. Sona Paint & Hardware, which held that designs form part of the goods while trademarks serve as identifiers of trade origin. After the expiry of a design registration, the product configuration enters the public domain, Liberty argued. Bata India was represented by Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul.