trademark infringement India

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.

Delhi High Court Denies Interim Relief to Wow Momo in Trademark Battle Against Wow Burger

by

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction to Wow Momo Foods in its trademark infringement suit against Wow Burger. The Court held that the word “WOW” is a common expression and cannot be monopolized by one company without clear evidence of distinctiveness.

The Dispute

Wow Momo, one of India’s fastest-growing quick service restaurant (QSR) chains, approached the Court seeking to restrain Wow Burger from using the mark “WOW.” The company argued that the use of “WOW BURGER” could mislead customers into believing a connection with its popular brands such as Wow! Momo and Wow! China.

The plaintiff stressed that “WOW” formed the core of its identity and had become synonymous with its food offerings across India.

The Court’s Findings

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ruled against granting interim relief. The Court observed that:

  • “WOW” is a dictionary word. It is often used in common speech and in the food industry as a laudatory term.
  • Wow Momo’s trademarks are composite marks such as “WOW! MOMO” and “WOW! CHINA,” and the company does not hold exclusive rights over “WOW” alone.
  • The plaintiff itself had admitted in earlier filings that “WOW” lacked inherent distinctiveness when used alone.
  • Evidence suggested that “WOW BURGER” was not used as a standalone brand by Wow Momo, but only as a menu item that has not been in active use since 2018.

The Court concluded that Wow Momo failed to prove that “WOW” had acquired a secondary meaning uniquely associated with its business.

No Deceptive Similarity

The judgment emphasized that trademarks must be compared as a whole. The Court found no deceptive similarity between “WOW! MOMO” and “WOW BURGER.” It also noted the presence of several other businesses in the food and hospitality sector using “WOW” in their names.

Balance of Convenience

On the issue of irreparable harm, the Court ruled that Wow Momo had not shown sufficient evidence of injury. The balance of convenience, it said, did not justify blocking Wow Burger from operating under its chosen name.

What This Means for Brands

The ruling is a reminder that generic or laudatory terms like “WOW,” “SUPER,” or “BEST” are difficult to protect as trademarks unless they have acquired distinct recognition. Businesses relying on such terms need to establish strong brand identity and evidence of consumer association.

This decision does not end the case. The full trial will determine whether Wow Momo can prove stronger rights over the use of “WOW” in the future.

Related Reading

Delhi High Court Awards ₹8 Lakh to Puma in Trademark Infringement Suit Over Counterfeit Goods

by

The Delhi High Court has awarded ₹8 lakh in damages to global sportswear giant PUMA SE in a trademark infringement case against a seller of counterfeit products. The court also issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using Puma’s registered trademarks.

⚖️ Court Decision

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the case, held that the defendant had willfully violated Puma’s trademark rights by selling fake products bearing identical marks. The court observed that the imitation was not accidental but a deliberate attempt to deceive consumers.

The court noted:

“The products being sold by the defendant are counterfeit, carrying the same logos, marks, and branding, which clearly shows the intent to ride upon the reputation of the plaintiff.”

Since the defendant failed to appear or submit any response despite several notices—especially after February 2024—the case proceeded ex parte.

🔗 Read full judgment coverage on LiveLaw

🛑 Counterfeiting and Consumer Deception

The court emphasized that Puma’s trademarks are well-known globally and have established significant goodwill and consumer trust in India. The defendant, by selling goods with identical marks in the same trade channels, violated the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and engaged in unfair competition.

This judgment aims to set a precedent for stricter action against counterfeiters who infringe on the rights of established brands and mislead Indian consumers.

“This is not a mere case of passing off; it is a case of outright counterfeiting,” the court held.

💰 Damages and Penalty

The High Court awarded Puma ₹8 lakh as compensation, citing the following reasons:

  • The damage to the brand’s reputation.
  • The loss of genuine sales and business.
  • The need to deter such unlawful conduct.

The court rejected symbolic damages and instead granted substantial monetary relief, reinforcing the seriousness of trademark violations.

🧾 Background of the Case

Puma filed the lawsuit after discovering the unauthorized sale of counterfeit Puma products by a local trader. The company sought:

  • A permanent injunction.
  • Damages for trademark infringement.
  • Disclosure of profits earned from fake goods.

Despite several summonses and notices, the defendant remained absent, prompting the court to decide based on the material available.

🔍 Legal Significance

This case highlights India’s growing judicial commitment to protecting IP rights, especially for well-known trademarks. Courts are increasingly awarding higher damages to deter counterfeiting, sending a clear signal to violators.

A similar ruling by the Delhi High Court in March 2025 also awarded ₹11 lakh in damages to Puma in a separate counterfeit case, showing judicial consistency in protecting brand owners.

VCARE InfoTech Renames Itself as “Newgen IT Technologies,” Faces Legal Action from Newgen Software Over Trademark Infringement

by

In a significant development in the realm of intellectual property rights, VCARE InfoTech has found itself entangled in a legal dispute after rebranding itself as “Newgen IT Technologies,” despite being aware of the registered trademark held by Newgen Software Technologies Limited. The Delhi-based software solutions firm initiated legal proceedings, leading to the court granting an interim injunction against the use of the infringing name.

Trademark Dispute Sparks Legal Action

The conflict began when VCARE InfoTech, during the course of a business partnership, decided to change its corporate identity to “Newgen IT Technologies.” According to court documents, the company was fully aware of Newgen Software’s established brand identity and registered trademarks in the technology and software sectors.

Newgen Software, a globally recognized digital transformation solutions provider with decades of market presence, argued that the renaming constituted deliberate trademark infringement and was likely to cause confusion among customers, clients, and partners. The company filed a suit before a competent court seeking immediate injunctive relief to prevent VCARE from using the name.

Court Grants Interim Injunction

After examining the facts and submissions from both sides, the court ruled in favor of Newgen Software. It noted that VCARE InfoTech’s adoption of a deceptively similar name not only violated trademark laws but also indicated dishonest intent, especially since the company had acknowledged the plaintiff’s rights in the mark “Newgen.”

The court emphasized that trademark law protects both brand reputation and consumer interest, and such usage could mislead stakeholders into believing there was an association or endorsement by Newgen Software.

In its interim order, the court restrained VCARE InfoTech from using the name “Newgen IT Technologies” in any form—whether as part of its corporate identity, marketing materials, or domain names—until final adjudication of the case.

Acknowledgment of Trademark Proves Costly

One of the most critical aspects of the court’s reasoning was that VCARE InfoTech had prior knowledge of the “Newgen” trademark and its association with Newgen Software. This undermined any defense of unintentional infringement. Legal experts opined that this could amount to “willful infringement,” which may attract stringent penalties under Indian intellectual property law.

“Awareness of a registered trademark followed by the adoption of a deceptively similar name can significantly weaken the defense in any trademark case,” said an IP law expert based in Delhi. “Courts are generally inclined to protect well-established brands, especially when the risk of confusion is high.”

Implications for Business Partnerships and Rebranding

This case also underscores the need for due diligence during corporate rebranding, particularly during mergers, acquisitions, or partnerships. Businesses are advised to conduct comprehensive trademark clearance searches and seek legal opinions before adopting new names that may conflict with existing intellectual property.

Failure to do so can not only result in costly legal battles but also damage business reputation and operations, especially if a court-ordered injunction halts the use of a newly adopted identity.

Way Forward

The case is still pending final resolution. VCARE InfoTech, now legally barred from using the name “Newgen IT Technologies,” has yet to publicly respond to the court’s decision. Newgen Software, meanwhile, reiterated its commitment to protecting its intellectual property and maintaining brand integrity.

This legal episode serves as a critical reminder for businesses navigating the complex space of branding and trademarks: awareness of an existing mark does not excuse its infringement—and may, in fact, make matters worse.

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief to Burger Singh in Trademark Infringement Dispute

by

In a significant development for brand protection in India’s fast-food industry, the Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to homegrown quick-service restaurant chain Burger Singh in a trademark infringement case. The court’s order restrains a former franchisee from continuing to use the company’s trademark following the termination of their business relationship.

Background of the Dispute

The legal action was initiated by Tipping Mr Pink Pvt. Ltd., the parent company of Burger Singh, after it discovered that one of its former franchisees in Patna, Bihar, continued operating under the “Burger Singh” name and associated branding, even after the franchise agreement was terminated.

The plaintiff alleged that the unauthorized use of its registered trademark and distinctive branding elements, including logos and packaging, was causing confusion among customers and harming the brand’s reputation. The company claimed this constituted trademark infringement and passing off.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Delhi High Court, after reviewing the documents and hearing initial arguments, found merit in the plaintiff’s claim and issued an interim injunction. The court directed the former franchisee to immediately cease the use of the “Burger Singh” mark or any deceptively similar brand name, logos, or signage until the final adjudication of the matter.

The order was passed by Justice Sanjeev Narula, who stated that prima facie evidence suggested that the continued use of the brand by the ex-franchisee could mislead the public and unjustly exploit the goodwill and market recognition of the original brand.

Legal Counsel and Representation

Burger Singh was represented by Advocate Jayant Kumar, who argued that allowing the former franchisee to operate under the same name post-termination would undermine the integrity of the trademark system and violate the terms of the franchise agreement.

The legal team also emphasized that continued misuse of the brand identity posed a risk of irreparable harm, especially in an industry where consumer loyalty is deeply tied to brand perception and consistency.

Impact and Industry Significance

This interim relief reinforces the rights of franchisors in India to protect their intellectual property, even after a franchise agreement has ended. The order sends a strong signal to franchisees about the legal risks of unauthorized brand use and the importance of adhering to contractual obligations.

The judgment is expected to set a precedent for similar disputes, particularly as the Indian food and beverage sector witnesses rapid expansion through franchising models. It also underlines the importance of trademark registration and enforcement as key tools in brand management.

What Lies Ahead

The case will now proceed to the next phase, where the court will hear further arguments, review contractual documentation, and assess damages, if any. The outcome of the full trial will determine whether a permanent injunction is warranted and if the plaintiff is entitled to any compensatory relief.

Meanwhile, Burger Singh continues to operate more than 100 outlets across India and abroad, and the company has reiterated its commitment to maintaining brand integrity through strict legal compliance and oversight.