Delhi HC Cancels Croose Trademark, Grants Relief to Crocs in Trademark Row

The Delhi High Court has granted relief to multinational footwear manufacturer ‘Crocs’, ordering the cancellation of the trademark registration for the mark ‘Croose’ after finding it deceptively similar to ‘Crocs’’ registered mark.

The order was passed by Justice Tejas Karia while dealing with a plea filed by ‘Crocs’ under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of the registration of ‘Croose’ in Class 25, registered in favour of Respondent No. 2.

The Court 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.”

It was ‘Crocs’’ case that the rival mark was not only phonetically and visually similar to its established mark but also likely to mislead consumers and traders in the footwear industry.

‘Crocs’, founded in 2002, is the registered proprietor of the mark across multiple jurisdictions, including India, where its products are sold extensively through exclusive stores, retail outlets, and leading e-commerce platforms such as Myntra, Ajio and Tata Cliq. The company emphasised that the brand enjoys substantial goodwill and recognition among consumers worldwide.

The petitioner further contended that the adoption of ‘Croose’ by the respondent was dishonest and intended to exploit ‘Crocs’’ reputation. Counsel for ‘Crocs’ argued that the lettering style used in the impugned mark is identical to that of the petitioner’s mark, and that its placement on products mirrored ‘Crocs’’ trade dress. It was also submitted that the mark, used for identical goods, would deceive unwary consumers into believing an association between the two brands.

On the other hand, the respondent maintained that the impugned mark was neither identical nor deceptively similar, asserting it was structurally, phonetically and visually different from ‘Crocs’.

Rejecting these submissions, the Court found ‘Crocs’, as the registered owner of the trademark, to be an aggrieved party entitled to seek rectification.

Court further noted, “Perusal of the above makes it apparent that the placement of the Impugned Mark is identical to that of the Plaintiff’s Mark. Additionally, the overall visual appearance of the Impugned Mark is similar to that of the Plaintiff’s Mark. It is further noted that both the Marks are phonetically similar and are being used for identical goods under the same Class.”

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to expunge ‘Croose’ from the register. The Court ordered, “Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Respondent No. 1, the Trade Marks Registry, is directed to remove the Impugned Mark ‘Croose’ bearing Registration No. 3409214 in Class 25… from the Register of Trade Marks.”

Case title: Crocs Inc v. The Registrar Of Trademarks New Delhi & Anr.

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia

Order Date: 26 September 2025