Legal & Compliance
Delhi High Court Revives Crocs’ Case Against Bata, Relaxo, Liberty & Others! Here is What it Really Means for India’s Design Industry
July 1, 2025
Design Infringement
Recently, the Delhi High Court brought Crocs back into the ring against Indian giants like Bata, Relaxo, and Liberty by reviving its passing-off suits. On the surface, this might look like another design fight over a popular clog shape. But dig deeper, and this decision signals a fundamental shift in how Indian courts are starting to approach design protection and brand identity.
This case is fascinating because it tests the line between a design being “functional” versus “distinctive.” Most Indian brands have grown up believing that if a shape has functional value or has been around for years, it is fair game. But what if consumers today instantly link that shape to one brand? That is where design protection starts behaving like a trademark!
The Earlier Decision (2019)
The single judge had dismissed Crocs’ suits on the ground that once a design is registered under the Designs Act, a brand cannot separately claim passing off. Essentially, the court believed Crocs was trying to claim an unfair “double monopoly” by using design rights and common law protection together. At that time, this interpretation leaned heavily in favor of open market competition and keeping designs in the public domain after registration.
What the New Decision changes (2025)
Recognises parallel protection: Earlier, courts believed that if a company had a registered design, it could not simultaneously claim passing off (a common law remedy based on reputation and consumer association). The new decision clarifies that statutory design rights and common law passing-off rights can coexist! This means a brand can now protect both the physical design and the goodwill built around that design.
Shifts focus from pure functionality to consumer perception: The court acknowledged that even if a design has some functional elements, it can still acquire distinctiveness over time. If consumers begin to identify that shape or configuration with a specific brand, it deserves protection beyond technical design registration.
No requirement for additional features beyond the design: The court stated that a passing off claim does not need extra or new features apart from the registered design. The design itself, once distinctive, is sufficient to establish misrepresentation.
Passing off claim survives design expiry or cancellation: The judgment confirmed that expiry or cancellation of a design registration does not prevent a passing off action. If the design has built goodwill in the market, that reputation can still be protected.
Rejects “double monopoly” argument: The court firmly rejected the idea that using both design rights and passing off rights creates an unfair monopoly. It clarified that these remedies serve different purposes and can lawfully coexist.
Industry implications
We are entering an era where design shape and configuration are no longer seen as minor visual details but as serious pillars of brand identity! Footwear, furniture, consumer electronics, personal care packaging, every category will now face sharper legal and market scrutiny. This new reality calls for a more thoughtful and proactive approach:
Companies must start treating shape and design as strategic brand equity, not just as aesthetic elements or seasonal trends.
Legal and product teams need to collaborate from the very beginning to document design development and establish distinctiveness before market launch.
Brands should invest in consumer perception studies and market research to build evidence that their design has acquired recognition and goodwill among customers.
Marketing and design teams must be trained to avoid borrowing visual cues or shapes that might mislead consumers into thinking they belong to a well-known competitor.
Startups and high-growth consumer brands must prepare for stricter IP due diligence from investors, distributors, and global partners, especially if their success depends on design-led differentiation.
Businesses should now consider integrating shape trademarks and trade dress strategies alongside design registrations to create a more robust, layered protection framework.
Closing Thoughts
The earlier decision dismissed Crocs’ suits, assuming design law and passing off cannot overlap. This new revival shows a clear willingness by Indian courts to protect shape-based brand equity more strongly. It suggests a shift towards recognising shape and configuration as part of a brand’s emotional connect with consumers.
This revival marks a legal maturation in India. Courts are leveraging common law to stiffen design protection, especially against consumer confusion. It’s a landmark moment that opens a path for stronger design respect, more disciplined product development, and elevated brand strategy.