Archive · 15 Nov 2025
Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Crocs' Design Lawsuit Revival
Imagine a company makes a unique-looking shoe, like Crocs.
They got a special design protection for it.
Other companies started making similar shoes, and Crocs sued them, saying they were tricking people into thinking their shoes were Crocs (this is called 'passing off').
The companies being sued said Crocs couldn't sue them for 'passing off' because they already had design protection.
A high court said Crocs could still sue for passing off.
The companies appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court said no, they wouldn't hear the appeal.
The Supreme Court did tell the lower court judge to make a decision without being influenced by what they or the high court said.
It means the legal fight can continue for Crocs to protect its shoe's look.
Supreme Court rejected appeals by Bata India and Liberty Shoes against a Delhi High Court ruling.
The High Court's ruling allowed Crocs Inc. to revive lawsuits over its signature footwear design.
The Supreme Court upheld the principle that passing off actions can proceed even with registered design protection.
Footwear makers argued that passing off claims unfairly extend design monopolies.
The Supreme Court directed trial courts to decide the pending suits independently.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, Bata India, Liberty Shoes, and other footwear makers, Crocs Inc.
- What
- The Supreme Court declined to entertain challenges against a Delhi High Court ruling that revived Crocs' passing off lawsuits over its signature footwear design. The court upheld the High Court's view that passing off actions can proceed even if the trade dress is protected as a registered design.
- When
- Friday (September 22, 2023, implied by publication time)
- Where
- India (Supreme Court and Delhi High Court)
- Why
- The Supreme Court did not entertain the challenges, leaving the High Court's ruling intact and directing trial courts to decide the suits independently. This decision allows passing off claims to coexist with design infringement claims, according to the High Court's established precedent.
Footwear Makers
Crocs Inc.
Passing Off Claims with Registered Designs
Footwear Makers
A passing off claim cannot coexist with a design infringement claim, as it effectively extends the limited statutory monopoly granted by the Designs Act beyond its prescribed period. The Carlsberg case, they argued, implied a standalone passing off claim is impermissible when the dispute exclusively concerns a registered design.
Crocs Inc.
Passing off is a distinct common law remedy, not excluded by the Designs Act. It protects the goodwill generated by trade dress based on user reputation and is fundamentally different from design infringement, which relies on registration. The high court's ruling correctly applies established principles.
Requirements for Passing Off Action
Footwear Makers
To sustain a passing off action when design infringement is the core issue, there must be additional elements pleaded beyond those for design infringement, which Crocs failed to do.
Crocs Inc.
The essentials of a passing off action (goodwill, misrepresentation, damage) are distinct from design infringement. Crocs' suits have been pending for over a decade, seeking to protect its instantly recognizable trade dress established since 2004.
- Supreme Court Justices
- Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe
- Challenging Companies
- Bata India, Liberty Shoes, Aqualite Industries, Bioworld Merchandising, Relaxo Footwears, Action Footwears
- Original Ruling Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of Division Bench Ruling
- July 1
- Crocs Trade Dress Recognition
- Since 2004
- Designs Act Monopoly Limit
- 15 years