Once again, a trademark dispute has reached the Delhi High Court—this time in the footwear industry. Crocs, known for its comfort and unique design, has become a popular trend in India. However, the brand name itself recently landed at the center of a legal battle, as two footwear companies clashed over the use of deceptively similar marks. The Crocs vs Croose Trademark Case between “Crocs” and “Croose” highlights the growing importance of trademark protection in India’s competitive fashion and lifestyle sector. If you want to know more about this case, keep reading.
What Is The Background Of The Crocs vs Croose Trademark Case?
To understand this case better, it is important to look at its background and how it all began. Crocs, the globally recognized footwear brand, has been a familiar name in India since the mid-2000s, when it secured registrations for its trademark. The dispute started when another company managed to obtain registration for the mark “CROOSE” in the same category. While this might appear insignificant to many, for Crocs, it was a serious matter of trademark infringement. The company argued that “CROOSE” was deceptively similar to its own well-established brand and that such registration violated its trademark rights and goodwill in India.
Crocs filed the case in the Delhi High Court in 2023, challenging the trademark registration of “CROOSE”. In its lawsuit, Crocs argued that “CROOSE” was similar to its own registered mark “CROCS,” both sound very similar and are visually similar, and that the adoption was done in bad faith to take advantage of Crocs’ goodwill. And they demanded the things, such as:
- Directions to the Registrar to update records within four weeks.
- Recognition that the adoption of “CROOSE” was in bad faith and infringed Crocs’ rights.
- And at the end, to reject the “CROOSE” legal registration.
Read Also: USPTO’s New Director John Squires Signs Off First Patents in Crypto and Healthcare Tech
Why Did the Delhi High Court Cancel the Croose Trademark Registration?
The case, filed back in 2023, went through several rounds of hearings before the Delhi High Court finally gave its decision. It noted that the company behind “CROOSE” failed to file any written replies despite being given many chances, and their right to do so was closed in April 2025. Even though they were allowed to argue orally, the Court found that “CROOSE” looked and sounded too similar to “CROCS,” which could confuse buyers. The judge also pointed out that the mark was adopted in bad faith and violated Crocs’ rights. And at the end, they rejected the registration of the “CROOSE”.
How Does the Crocs vs Croose Case Highlight Trademark Protection in IPR?
Looking at this case from an intellectual property rights (IPR) perspective, it highlights the importance of protecting trademarks. Trademarks serve not only as brand identifiers but also as assurances of quality and reputation for consumers.
In this Crocs vs Croose Trademark Case, the Delhi High Court held that even minor differences in spelling or design cannot justify the use of a mark if it creates the likelihood of confusion. The decision also highlights the principle that making a trademark in bad faith, particularly when it imitates a globally recognized brand like Crocs, amounts to a violation of the law under the Trademarks Act. This judgment sets a clear precedent that the Indian courts take trademark protection seriously, safeguarding both the interests of brand owners and the rights of consumers.
Conclusion
The Crocs vs Croose Trademark Case is a strong reminder of how seriously Indian courts view trademark protection. By cancelling the “CROOSE” mark, the Delhi High Court reinforced that brand identity and consumer trust must be safeguarded, and that bad faith adoption of similar marks will not be tolerated. The judgment also sends a message to businesses that shortcuts in branding can lead to legal battles and reputational damage. For global brands operating in India, it reaffirms the strength of IPR enforcement and the importance of actively defending their trademarks.
Read Also: Madras High Court Calls for Vijay, TVK Reply in Party Flag Trademark Appeal