Introduction
On 26 September 2025, the Delhi High Court, delivered a key judgment in Crocs Inc. v. Registrar, Trademarks & Anr.1 .The petition filed under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 sought cancellation of the mark “CROOSE” (Reg. No. 3409214 in Class 25 – footwear). Crocs argued that the impugned mark “CROOSE” was deceptively similar to its well-established brand “CROCS”, and that its continued presence on the Trade Marks Register would mislead consumers and dilute Crocs’ goodwill.
The Court agreed with Crocs, holding that “CROOSE” was indeed deceptively similar to “CROCS” and therefore directed that it be cancelled from the Register of Trade Marks.
Background of Crocs’ Business and Trademarks
Crocs Inc., founded in 2002, is a leading global footwear company known for its distinctive clog-style shoes and more than 300 footwear designs for men, women, and children. In India, Crocs operates through its subsidiary Crocs India Pvt. Ltd., based in Gurgaon, Haryana. Its products are sold widely through exclusive stores, multi-brand outlets, and e-commerce platforms such as Myntra, TataCliq, and Ajio.
Crocs owns several registrations of the mark “CROCS” in India under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 across Classes 9, 10, 14, 18, 25, and 35 and owns domain names including www.crocs.com, www.crocs.in, and www.shopcrocs.in, further strengthening its online reputation and consumer recognition.
The Impugned Mark – “CROOSE”
The dispute arose when Respondent No. 2 secured registration of the mark “CROOSE” in Class 25, covering footwear products. Crocs contended that “CROOSE” was visually, phonetically, and conceptually similar to “CROCS”, and that its stylization and placement on footwear closely mimicked that of Crocs’ genuine products.
Crocs alleged that the Respondent had earlier marketed goods under other names—“JNG”, “AEROLITE”, and “RBS”—but later adopted “CROOSE” dishonestly to ride on Crocs’ reputation and goodwill.
Crocs’ Submissions
- Crocs’ was the prior adopter and continuous user of the mark “CROCS” since 2002, and had applied for its registration in India as early as 2005–2006.
- Due to years of widespread use, the mark has acquired distinctiveness and was directly associated with Crocs in the minds of the public.
- “CROOSE”:
- Copied the lettering style of “CROCS”.
- Was used in the same position on footwear products.
- Targeted the same class of goods – footwear in Class 25.
- Was bound to cause deception and confusion among consumers, who might believe that “CROOSE” products originated from Crocs.
- The registration of “CROOSE” violated Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, which prohibits registration of marks deceptively similar to earlier marks, and was also barred by Sections 9 and 11 for lack of distinctiveness.
Respondent’s Defence
Despite being given multiple opportunities, Respondent No. 2 failed to file a written reply and its right to do so was closed by an order dated 23 April 2025. However, during oral submissions, the Respondent argued that “CROOSE” was structurally, phonetically, and visually different from “CROCS”. It also submitted that its mark had gone through due process before registration and should not be cancelled. Hence, its registration should stand.
Court’s Findings
Upon visual comparison, the Court found that:
- The placement of “CROOSE” on the Respondent’s footwear was identical to Crocs’ placement of “CROCS”.
- The overall visual a3ppearance of “CROOSE” was highly similar.
- Both marks were phonetically alike, differing by only one letter.
- Both were used in connection with identical goods – footwear in Class 25.
Therefore, the Court held that “CROOSE” was likely to cause confusion and deception among consumers, who could mistakenly assume an association between the two. It concluded that the impugned mark “CROOSE” was hit by Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court allowed Crocs’ petition and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the mark “CROOSE” (Reg. No. 3409214, Class 25) from the Register. The Court further directed the Registry to update its online records within four weeks and ensure compliance.
Conclusion
This ruling enforces how Indian courts protect established brands from deceptively similar marks. The decision confirms that “CROOSE”, being almost identical to “CROCS”, could not remain on the Register as it posed a clear risk of consumer confusion. For Crocs, the ruling reinforces its rights over one of the most recognized footwear brands globally. The judgment also illustrates that even a single-letter variation in a famous mark cannot justify registration where the visual, phonetic, and trade-channel similarities are overwhelming. More broadly, it reflects the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining the purity of the Register of Trade Marks and safeguarding consumer trust in the marketplace.
- [1] C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 82/2023 ↩︎