WHEN YOUR BRAND BECOMES A BATTLEGROUND: THE CROCS VS CROOSE CASE AND WHY TOUR BUSINESS NEEDS PROTECTION
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court recently cancelled the trademark registration for "Croose," finding it deceptively similar to Crocs' registered mark. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia's ruling highlighted the importance of intellectual property protection for brands, particularly in design and lifestyle sectors. The case underscores the necessity of early trademark registration, proactive brand monitoring, and effective enforcement strategies to protect market identity. Crocs' victory serves as a reminder of the critical role trademark law plays in maintaining brand goodwill and preventing consumer confusion. "The Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment is significant as it not only reinforces the scope of protection available to well-known brands but also reiterates the importance of preventing confusion in the marketplace”.

INTRODUCTION
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s September 2025 ruling in Crocs Inc. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. provides a detailed examination of whether the mark ‘Croose’ infringes upon the established trademark ‘Crocs’. The Court’s decision is important because it not only strengthens the protections available for well-known brands but also emphasizes the need to avoid confusion among consumers. Brand identity is incredibly valuable for any business. Every aspect, from the logo to the product design, shapes how consumers view a brand. However, when a brand becomes popular, it often attracts imitation. This can lead to serious legal conflicts, especially when another company tries to cash in on your brand’s success. A notable example of this is the case between Crocs, the famous footwear brand, and Croose, a local manufacturer accused of copying the design and style of Crocs' recognizable clogs. This case serves as a vital reminder: protecting your brand is not just a choice; it's necessary. Whether you run a large corporation or a small business, taking steps to protect your intellectual property is key to avoiding damage to your reputation, confusion in the market, and potential financial setbacks.
THE BACKGROUND: CROCS AND ITS ICONIC DESIGN
Crocs Inc., known for its unique clog-style footwear since its founding in 2002, has found itself in a legal dispute over its trademark. The company claims that its 'Crocs' mark has gained considerable recognition and goodwill, making it synonymous with its products in the eyes of consumers. The central issue arises from the respondent's use of the mark 'CROOSE' for similar footwear products. Crocs contends that this move was made in bad faith, aiming to benefit from the company’s established reputation. Led by attorney Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Crocs provided evidence that the respondent had previously sold its products under different names—'JNG', 'AEROLITE', and 'RBS'.
The change to 'CROOSE' is seen as a strategic attempt to leverage Crocs' brand popularity. Crocs’ case is built on several key points of similarity:
· Phonetic Similarity: The names 'CROOSE' and 'Crocs' sound alike, which could confuse customers when they hear them.
· Visual Similarity: The design and lettering of the 'CROOSE' mark closely resemble Crocs' distinct font.
· Product Placement: The way the 'CROOSE' mark is displayed on footwear mirrors how Crocs places its own branding, adding to potential confusion for consumers.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS AND INDUSTRY IMPACT
The recent ruling has significant implications for those in intellectual property law and brand strategy. It highlights the importance of considering marks as a whole, rather than getting caught up in minor differences. The court's approach to assessing deceptive similarity involves looking at all attributes of the marks in context. Additionally, the ruling emphasizes that evidence of bad faith—such as a defendant trying to benefit from the reputation of an established brand—plays a crucial role in infringement cases. It also reaffirms the strong protection that Indian law provides to well-known trademarks, making it clear that registering a similar mark in the same category is quite challenging. For new businesses, this case serves as a valuable lesson: adopting a mark that too closely resembles an industry leader can lead to expensive litigation and potential loss of trademark rights. Therefore, conducting thorough due diligence and focusing on creating a unique brand identity is essential for long-term success.
To know more about this you can follow the link below:
COURT’S OBSERVATIONS
· Importance of Distinctive Design Protection – The Hon’ble Delhi High Court highlighted the necessity of safeguarding unique product designs and trade dress.
· Visual Similarity Not Coincidental- The Court pointed out that the resemblance between Crocs and Croose was intentional, aimed at leveraging Crocs' established goodwill.
· Close Examination of Marks - The bench meticulously compared the two brands, deeming them too similar to be acceptable. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia expressed concerns over this proximity.
· Crocs as the Aggrieved Party - Crocs was recognized as an "aggrieved party" under Section 57 (hereinafter referred as the “The Act”), allowing them to pursue cancellation of the similar trademark.
· Deceptively Similar Trademarks - According to Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, no trademark can stay registered if it closely resembles another in the same product category.
· Consumer Confusion - Crocs' legal team stressed that casual buyers could easily be misled into thinking Croose products were affiliated with the Crocs brand. The Court acknowledged this concern.
· Maintaining Trade Mark Integrity - The Court emphasized the importance of "maintaining the purity of the Register of Trade Marks" to protect consumers and established brands alike.
CONCLUSION
The Crocs vs. Croose case serves as a powerful reminder that brand protection is essential for sustainable business growth. Crocs' victory was not just a legal triumph; it underscored the importance of safeguarding creativity, innovation, and reputation. Every business, regardless of size, must proactively protect its intellectual property and enforce its rights against imitation. In a landscape where brands often become battlegrounds, those who defend their identities are the ones that endure and prosper. In concluding the matter, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia ruled in favor of Crocs. The ruling clearly stated: "The impugned mark is deceptively similar to the petitioner’s mark ‘CROCS’ and is likely to cause confusion among consumers and members of the trade. Therefore, the impugned mark deserves to be cancelled.” The Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the contested registration (Application No. 3409214, Class 25) from the official records within four weeks and instructed that the online database of the Trade Marks Registry be updated accordingly.