On November 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a pivotal ruling in the long-standing legal battle between Crocs Inc. USA and several Indian footwear giants, including Bata India Ltd. and Liberty Shoes.
The Court effectively handed a strategic victory to Crocs by allowing its "passing off" lawsuits—claims that competitors are imitating its distinctive shoe shape to deceive customers—to proceed to a full trial.
The Core Ruling :-
The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe, dismissed the appeals filed by Bata and Liberty.
The Decision: The Court refused to interfere with a July 2025 Delhi High Court order that had revived Crocs’ suits.
The Logic: The Justices noted that the High Court had "merely restored the suits" for consideration and had not yet granted a final victory to Crocs. Therefore, there was no reason for the Supreme Court to stop the legal process at this stage.
Status of the Case: The matter has now been sent back to a single-judge trial court to be decided on its merits, "uninfluenced" by previous observations.
While Design Infringement and Passing Off may look similar (as both involve one company copying another), but they are governed by different laws and require different types of proof.
1. Design Infringement (Statutory Right)
This is a "fixed-term" monopoly granted by the government under the Designs Act, 2000.
Source of Right: Registration. You must apply for and receive a certificate for a "new or original" design.
Focus: It protects the aesthetic look (shape, configuration, or ornament) of the product itself.
Duration: Valid for a maximum of 15 years (10 years + 5-year extension). After this, the design enters the "public domain," and anyone can use it.
The "Crocs" Issue: Crocs' design registration for its foam clogs had expired. Bata and other companies argued that since the 15-year "monopoly" was over, they were free to copy the shape.
2. Passing Off (Common Law Right)
This is an "unlimited" right based on brand reputation, protected under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (specifically Section 27).
Source of Right: Usage and Goodwill. You don't need a registration certificate; you need to prove the public recognizes the design as "yours."
Focus: It protects the source of the product. It prevents a competitor from deceiving a customer into thinking they are buying a "Crocs" shoe when they are actually buying a "Bata" shoe.
Duration: Technically forever, as long as the brand continues to have goodwill and reputation.
The "Crocs" Issue: Crocs argued that even if their design expired, the shape is so famous that it acts like a trademark. They claimed Bata was "passing off" their shoes as Crocs by using that specific shape.
3. The "Classical Trinity" Test
To win a Passing Off case (which is what the Supreme Court allowed Crocs to pursue), Crocs must prove three things in the trial court:
Goodwill: That the "clog shape" is so famous in India that people associate it exclusively with Crocs.
Misrepresentation: That Bata’s shoes are so similar that an average customer is likely to be confused or deceived.
Damage: That Crocs is losing money or brand value because of this confusion.
Why the Nov 14th Ruling was a "Win" for Crocs
Bata had argued that a company shouldn't be allowed to use "Passing Off" to get a permanent monopoly on a shape once the "Design" period expires. They called this "backdoor evergreening." However, by refusing to stop the case, the Supreme Court signaled that Common Law rights (Passing Off) can exist independently of Statutory rights (Designs). This means even if your patent or design expires, if your product is "iconic," you still have a weapon to fight imitators.
