Delhi High Court

Delhi HC Cancels “Croose” Trademark, Upholds Crocs’ Rights in Footwear Dispute

by

Court Finds “Croose” Deceptively Similar to “CROCS”

The Delhi High Court has cancelled the trademark registration of “Croose” after ruling that the mark was deceptively similar to “CROCS”, the globally recognized footwear brand. The decision comes as a significant relief for Crocs, Inc., which has been battling misuse of its brand identity in India.

The Case

Crocs, Inc. filed a rectification petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The company argued that the “Croose” mark (Registration No. 3409214 in Class 25 for footwear) created confusion in the minds of consumers.

The petitioner claimed that the impugned mark was phonetically, visually, and structurally similar to “CROCS.” It further alleged that the respondent adopted the mark dishonestly to ride on Crocs’ goodwill in the Indian footwear market.

Court’s Findings

Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court agreed with Crocs’ submissions.

  • The court noted that both marks were used for identical goods — footwear.
  • The similarity in sound and appearance between “Croose” and “Crocs” was held sufficient to create a likelihood of consumer confusion.
  • The adoption of the mark was deemed dishonest, with an intent to exploit Crocs’ established reputation.

Based on these observations, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove “Croose” from the register.

Why This Matters

Protection for Global Brands

The ruling reaffirms Indian courts’ strong stance on protecting well-known trademarks. Companies with established reputations can expect judicial support against infringing or deceptively similar marks.

Consumer Interest

The decision also safeguards consumers, ensuring they are not misled by products marketed under confusingly similar names.

Market Implications

By cancelling the “Croose” registration, the court has sent a clear signal to businesses that piggybacking on popular brands will not be tolerated.

Broader Context

Crocs has been expanding aggressively in India and has previously taken action against infringers and copycat products. This judgment strengthens its legal position in future disputes.

Trademark experts note that such rulings will deter small and mid-level players from choosing names that mimic established global brands. It also contributes to a healthier competitive environment in India’s fast-growing footwear market.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision to cancel the “Croose” trademark marks a decisive victory for Crocs. By protecting a well-known brand and curbing dishonest adoption of similar marks, the court has reinforced the principle that trademark law is both a shield for businesses and a safeguard for consumers.

Supreme Court Rejects CCI Plea in Patent Investigation Case

by

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) plea seeking permission to investigate alleged anti-competitive practices in a patents dispute. The decision came on September 5, 2025, and upheld the Delhi High Court’s earlier order.

Background of the Case

The case involved Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Monsanto Holding Private Limited. Both companies faced allegations of imposing unfair licensing terms for their standard-essential patents. The informants had earlier approached the CCI, claiming violations of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

The Delhi High Court, however, quashed the investigation. It held that once the informants reached a settlement with the companies, there was no reason for the CCI to continue the probe. The court also stressed that the Patents Act provided the legal framework for addressing licensing disputes.

CCI’s Argument

The CCI challenged the High Court’s decision through a Special Leave Petition (SLP). It argued that it retained authority to examine whether patent holders abused their dominant position in the market. The regulator claimed that restricting its jurisdiction would weaken competition law enforcement.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the CCI’s appeal. The judges said the High Court’s order required no interference, as the informants had settled their grievances. They also noted that the inquiry overlapped with the statutory role of the Controller of Patents.

The Court clarified that its decision was limited to this case. It left open the possibility of re-examining the issue of overlap between competition law and patent law in future disputes.

Implications

The ruling reinforces the primacy of the Patents Act when disputes involve licensing terms and royalty payments. It also highlights the limits of the CCI’s role when cases fall within the domain of intellectual property law.

Legal experts believe the decision could influence future disputes involving technology licensing, biotech patents, and pharmaceutical patents. The judgment sends a clear message that patent law takes precedence, but it does not entirely close the door for competition scrutiny in other contexts.

Delhi High Court Rules Common Words Cannot Be Monopolised in Yatra Trademark Dispute

by

The Delhi High Court has ruled that businesses cannot monopolise everyday words as trademarks. The decision came in a trademark dispute between Yatra Online Limited and Mach Conferences and Events Limited, the company behind the brand BookMyYatra.

Justice Tejas Karia dismissed Yatra’s plea to stop BookMyYatra from using the term. The court observed that “Yatra”, a Hindi word meaning travel, is generic and descriptive in the travel industry. Therefore, it cannot be granted exclusive protection as a trademark.

Court’s Reasoning

The court pointed out that Yatra Online had registered trademarks such as “Yatra with device” and “Yatra Freight.” However, these registrations carried explicit disclaimers stating that no exclusive rights were claimed over the standalone word “Yatra.”

Because of these disclaimers, the court ruled that Yatra Online could not expand its rights to claim monopoly over the word. The judgment reaffirmed that generic or descriptive words do not indicate the origin of goods or services, and thus lack distinctiveness.

Wider Legal Context

This ruling is consistent with earlier judgments. In 2023, the Delhi High Court held that words of common English usage cannot be registered as trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The law prevents the registration of marks that are descriptive or devoid of distinctive character.

Legal experts note that only terms that gain secondary meaning through long and exclusive use can qualify for trademark protection. Descriptive and generic words, on the other hand, remain free for all businesses to use.

Industry Impact

The ruling is a significant reminder for businesses in travel and other industries. Companies are encouraged to adopt distinctive brand names instead of relying on common words. Using descriptive terms may create recognition, but they cannot guarantee exclusivity.

Delhi High Court Suggests Zee Media Consider Logo Change in “Duniyadari” Trademark Dispute

by

The Delhi High Court has advised Zee Media Corporation to consider altering its logo in an ongoing trademark dispute with the India Today Group. The case revolves around the title “Duniyadari,” which both media houses are using for their news shows.

The Dispute

India Today Group, through its digital platform The Lallantop, has been running a popular show called Duniyadari since 2020. The programme attracts millions of views, with some episodes crossing 8.5 million views. The company claims strong goodwill and recognition for the mark.

Zee Media launched a Punjabi-language show with the same title, written in Gurmukhi script. India Today alleged that the use of “Duniyadari” in any form amounts to infringement and passing off, even after Zee removed a globe symbol from its logo.

Zee’s Argument

Zee Media argued that “Duniyadari” is a common Hindi expression that means “worldly affairs.” It said no company can monopolise such a generic term. The broadcaster further stressed that India Today’s registration covers only a stylised label and not exclusive rights to the word itself. Zee also referred to the 2013 Marathi film Duniyadari as proof that the term has long been in public use.

Court’s Observations

Justice Tejas Karia noted that the similarity between the two marks could confuse viewers who can read both Hindi and Gurmukhi. He said the marks appeared “prima facie deceptively similar.” The judge suggested that Zee could consider changing its logo if it wished to avoid prolonged litigation. However, he clarified that this was not a final ruling.

Next Steps

The Court directed Zee Media to file its reply by August 22, 2025. The matter will be heard again on September 2, 2025.

India Today expressed openness to resolve the matter through negotiation but maintained that Zee must stop using the “Duniyadari” mark if a settlement cannot be reached.

The case highlights the growing conflicts in India’s media industry over trademark ownership, especially when popular content crosses into multiple languages and regions.

“Ratan Tata” is a well-known trademark: Delhi High Court

by

The recent judgement issued by Delhi High Court on February 7 says that the name “Ratan Tata” is a well-known trademark which needs to be protected as per law.
Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while hearing a trademark suit filed by Tata Group and Sir Ratan Tata Trust against misusing the Tata brand, trademarks and the name of late Ratan Tata. [Sir Ratan Tata Trust Vs Dr. Rajat Srivastava].
On February 7, 2025, the court prohibited Rajat Srivastava, from hosting an event under the name “Ratan Tata Icon Award.” The court also restricted him from using the name and photograph of the late Ratan Tata for any purpose, including conferring any awards. The judgement is to protect the reputation and legacy of Ratan Tata, a highly respected business figure and philanthropist. The injunction likely stems from concerns over the misuse of his name and image in a manner that could potentially mislead or cause confusion about his endorsement of such events.
Generally, a well-known trademark is a mark that has achieved such a high degree of recognition among the public. It’s a mark that’s so famous and recognizable that its mere presence evokes the brand in the minds of consumers.
The lawsuit filed by Tata Group and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust emphasized the long-standing reputation and legacy of the Tata name, which has been a symbol of trust, quality, and ethical business practices in India for over 150 years. They argued that the unauthorized use of the Tata name and Ratan Tata’s image, particularly in the organization of events and awards, misled the public into thinking the Tata entities were endorsing them.
Rajat Srivastava and his organization, allegedly exploited the Tata brand’s goodwill by charging nomination fees for the event and promoting it across social media platforms. This created confusion among the public, making them believe the event was connected to or endorsed by the Tata Trusts. Despite the Tata Trusts issuing a takedown notice to stop such promotions, the defendants allegedly continued advertising the event, prompting the legal action.
The court ruled in favor of the Tata Group and the Sir Ratan Tata Trusts, granting them a permanent injunction against Rajat Srivastava and his organization. This means that the defendants are now permanently prohibited from using the Tata name, trademarks, or Ratan Tata’s image in any future events, promotions, or activities. However, the court directed the defendants to file an affidavit confirming their commitment to not engage in such activities going forward.
While the plaintiffs, Tata Group and the Tata Trusts, expressed satisfaction with the court’s ruling, they chose to waive any claims for damages or legal costs. This decision emphasizes that their main focus is on protecting the integrity of the Tata brand and preventing future misuse, rather than seeking any financial compensation.

Ratan_Tata_Vs_Delhi_todayDownload