Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Crocs Design, Patent and Trademark Infringement Case

In Crocs Inc. & Anr. v. Summersalt Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 388/2026, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Crocs, restraining the defendant from infringing its registered designs, trademarks, and patent relating to footwear and accessory systems. This article examines the facts, issues, and findings of the Court in detail.

Summary

The Court reaffirmed that blatant imitation of product design, trade dress, and patented features constitutes infringement and passing off, particularly where it seeks to exploit established goodwill.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs, Crocs Inc. and its subsidiary, are globally recognized for their distinctive footwear, including products sold under the “CROCS,” “HEYDUDE,” and “JIBBITZ” brands. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of multiple intellectual property rights, including:

• Multiple registered designs relating to footwear
• Registered trademarks including “CROSLITE”
• Indian Patent No. 271337 covering a system for attaching decorative accessories to shoes

The plaintiffs asserted extensive goodwill and reputation built through global sales and promotion.

The dispute arose when the plaintiffs discovered that the defendant was manufacturing and selling footwear and accessories through e-commerce platforms. The defendant’s products allegedly:

• Imitated the plaintiffs’ registered designs
• Incorporated similar decorative attachment systems
• Used deceptively similar trademarks

An investigation conducted by the plaintiffs revealed that the defendant’s products closely resembled the plaintiffs’ registered designs and also infringed the patented Jibbitz attachment mechanism.

Issue Before the Court

Whether the defendant’s alleged imitation of the plaintiffs’ designs, patented system, and trademarks warranted the grant of an ex parte ad-interim injunction.

Findings of the Court

Slavish Copying of Registered Designs

The Court found that the comparative analysis of the products prima facie established that the defendant had slavishly copied the plaintiffs’ registered designs without any material modification. It observed that such imitation was likely to cause confusion among consumers and indicated a clear intent to ride upon the plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation.

Infringement of Patent and Trademarks

The Court further held that the defendant’s products appeared to infringe not only the plaintiffs’ registered designs but also the suit patent relating to the attachment of decorative accessories, as well as the registered trademarks, including the “CROSLITE” mark and the 3D shape mark.

It noted that the overall similarity in trade dress, get-up, and product features demonstrated a lack of bona fide adoption and pointed towards deliberate copying.

Prima Facie Case and Balance of Convenience

Considering the extensive registrations, commercial presence, and evidence on record, the Court held that the plaintiffs had established a strong prima facie case, with the balance of convenience in their favour. It further held that irreparable harm would be caused if the injunction was not granted.

Order of the Court

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from engaging in activities that infringe the plaintiffs’ intellectual property. Specifically, the Court directed the following:

• The defendant is restrained from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing in any products that infringe the plaintiffs’ registered designs.
• The defendant is restrained from infringing Indian Patent No. 271337.
• The defendant is restrained from infringing the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks, including the “CROSLITE” mark and 3D shape mark.
• The defendant is directed to take down all infringing listings and promotional material from its website and third-party platforms.
• The defendant is directed to preserve records relating to the manufacture and sale of the impugned products.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces strong judicial protection for integrated intellectual property portfolios, covering designs, patents, and trademarks. It highlights that imitation of product configuration, functional systems, and branding elements in combination will attract strict injunctive relief, particularly where such conduct is aimed at leveraging the goodwill of an established brand.