Today, On 14th November, The Supreme Court refused to consider petitions by Bata and Liberty against a Delhi High Court decision restoring Crocs’ passing off suits. This ruling clears the path for Crocs to continue its legal proceedings against several Indian footwear manufacturers.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court declined to consider petitions filed by Bata India and Liberty Shoes, which challenged a July 2025 judgment from the Delhi High Court that reinstated Crocs Inc. USA’s passing off lawsuits against several Indian footwear manufacturers, including Bata, Liberty, Relaxo, Action Shoes, Aqualite, and Bioworld Merchandising.
The panel of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, noting that the High Court had simply revived the suits for consideration, without granting Crocs any substantial relief.
The Court emphasized that the trial court should evaluate the cases independently.
The Bench stated,
“We are not inclined to entertain this plea. The Delhi High Court has merely restored the suits for consideration by the trial court. We, however, make it clear that the trial court of the learned single judge shall consider the matters uninfluenced by any observations made by the division bench or by the dismissal of these SLPs. Question of law kept open,”
Bata India was represented by Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, while Liberty Shoes was represented by Advocate Saikrishna Rajagopal from Saikrishna & Associates.
The dispute arises from Crocs Inc. USA’s long-running litigation in the Delhi High Court, accusing several Indian footwear companies of copying the design, shape, and perforated features of its popular foam clogs.
Crocs claims these elements constitute its trade dress or shape trademark, asserting that the Indian manufacturers are misleading consumers and unfairly benefiting from Crocs’ global reputation.
In February 2019, a single judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed all six suits at an early stage, ruling that Crocs could not pursue passing off actions for a product configuration already protected as a registered design. The judge concluded that passing off protection could not be used to extend monopoly over features covered by the Designs Act.
However, in July 2025, a Division Bench consisting of Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul set-aside that ruling, allowing the suits to continue on the basis that the single-judge decision warranted reconsideration.
This prompted Bata India and Liberty Shoes to seek relief from the Supreme Court.
Liberty’s petition argued that the Division Bench misinterpreted the Full Bench ruling in Carlsberg Breweries A/S v. Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd., which stated that once a design is registered, its features cannot be simultaneously protected through passing off unless the claimant shows something more, such as a broader trade dress beyond the registered design.
Liberty cautioned that permitting Crocs’ lawsuits to move forward would effectively grant the company a “dual monopoly,” extending trademark-style protection to features that the Designs Act allows to be monopolized only for a limited time.
Additionally, they referred to the Full Bench ruling in Mohan Lal v. Sona Paint & Hardwares, which clarified that a design constitutes part of the goods themselves, in contrast to trademarks, which signify trade origin. Once the design registration expires, its features enter the public domain.
Case Title: Bata India, Liberty v. Crocs, India USA