'Deceptively similar': Delhi High Court orders removal of Croose in trademark case by Crocs

According to Crocs, the lettering, style, and placement of the word ‘Croose’ closely resembled that of ‘Crocs,’ causing a real risk of consumer confusion.

The Delhi High Court has sided with US-based footwear giant Crocs in its trademark battle against the mark ‘Croose,’ ruling that the latter is deceptively similar and likely to mislead consumers.

According to a report by Bar and Bench, on September 26, Justice Tejas Karia delivered the order in the case Crocs Inc Vs The Registrar Of Trademarks New Delhi & Anr., observing that the registration of ‘Croose’ violated Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act.

This provision bars the registration of a trademark that is deceptively similar to an already existing one for identical or related goods. “Therefore, the Impugned Mark (Croose) is hit by Section 11(1)(b) of the (Trademarks) Act, which prohibits registration of a Trade Mark that is deceptively similar to a Trade Mark, which is already on the register in respect of identical or similar goods,” the Court said as per the report.

Crocs, established in 2002 and known globally for its distinctive style, had approached the High Court seeking removal of the mark ‘Croose.’ The company submitted that its trademarks had been registered in India as far back as 2005-2006 and argued that the goodwill and reputation it had built internationally were being unfairly exploited by the rival mark.

According to Crocs, the lettering, style, and placement of the word ‘Croose’ closely resembled that of ‘Crocs,’ causing a real risk of consumer confusion.

According to the report, when comparing the two marks, the Court noted similarities both visually and phonetically. Justice Karia remarked that the use of ‘Croose’ could indeed confuse buyers who may mistake it for ‘Crocs.’ The Court also emphasized that maintaining the “purity of the register” was essential, concluding that the impugned mark ought to be removed.

“The present Petition is allowed and Respondent No. 1, the Trade Marks Registry is directed to remove the Impugned Mark ‘Croose’ bearing Registration No. 3409214 in Class 25 registered in the name of Respondent No.2 from the Register of Trade Marks,” the Court has been quoted as saying. It further instructed that the official website of the Registrar of Trade Marks be updated within four weeks to reflect this deletion.

During proceedings, Croose did not submit any written reply but only made oral arguments opposing Crocs’ claims. The Court, however, found merit in Crocs’ petition and ruled in its favor, the report said. It ordered the cancellation of ‘Croose,’ and granted Crocs the relief it sought.