
Crocs Inc USA filed a design infringement suit against various Indian footwear manufacturers: The alleged design referred to perforated and non-perforated shoe design: The said infringed design registration was valid until 2019: Crocs’ claim against different manufactures for the same allegation were clubbed and presented before the Delhi high court where the major defendants were Bata India, Relaxo footwear Ltd, Coqui & others: The appellant pleaded the court to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and selling the alleged design and to allow the said design to be used a trademark under the TRADEMARKS ACT, 1999: The respondent contended that the said design was available in the website of holy sole from 2002 and 2003 claiming the registration to be invalid one: The respondents further opposed the arguments of appellant that design cannot be used as trademark under the DESIGNS ACT, 2000:
Whether the plaintiff’s design was in the public domain prior to registration or not?:
Whether the design of the plaintiff footwear was new, unique and original?:
Whether the registered design constitute a trademark?:
Since the alleged design lacks novelty and originality because of the prior publication of the design in various medium, the courtroom held that appellant cannot allege the infringement or piracy: The court further agreed with the respondent’s argument that a registered design cannot constitute a trade mark, unless there are features other than those registered as a design and are shown to be used as a trade mark and with respect to which goodwill has been acquired: The court imposed heavy fine upon the appellant which were to be paid to the respondents within 2 months of judgement: That courts’ action against CROCS Inc is a major warning for those MNCs who uses the loopholes of law and make the local company suffer losses:
Video Summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mcn08pivylU&list=PL1DBVyVi7EaCojbQa5_XKBVJqA1y1REh&index=6