‘Deceptively similar to Crocs’: Delhi HC orders cancellation of Croose trademark

In its petition, Crocs submitted that it was the “prior user and adopter of the said ‘CROCS’ marks”. It said that it applied for trademark registration in India in 2005 and 2006. The footwear giant furter highlighted that the style and placement of the mark on Croose’s products were identical to those on Crocs’ products.

Drawing a comparison between the trademarks, their placement on products, and their visual appearance, the court observed: “…the overall visual appearance of the Impugned Mark (Croose) is similar to that of the Plaintiff’s Mark (Crocs). It is further noted that both the Marks are phonetically similar and are being used for identical goods under the same Class.”

Justice Karia also noted that the similarity “is likely to cause confusion amongst consumers and members of the trade,” and held that “…the Impugned Mark is hit by Section 11(1)(b) of the Act, which prohibits registration of a trademark that is deceptively similar to a trademark already on the register in respect of identical or similar goods.”

The court thus stated in its order, “Considering the above discussion and the settled law, in order to maintain the purity of the Register of Trade Marks, the Impugned Mark ‘Croose’ deserves to be cancelled/removed from the Register of Trade Marks.”