Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label Design Passing Off

Trap Purchases and Manufactured Jurisdiction in Indian IP Litigation

  Trap Purchases and Manufactured Jurisdiction in Indian IP Litigation A study of SML Ltd. v. M/s Happy Agro Chemicals and the doctrine of trap transactions Introduction In intellectual property disputes, few procedural issues matter as much as deciding where a case can be filed. The choice of court often shapes the entire journey of the case — from how quickly interim orders are granted, to the attitude of the local lawyers, to the practical burden placed on a defendant who must fight far from home. Because the forum is so important, plaintiffs sometimes try to influence it. The most common method is the trap purchase : a test buy arranged by the plaintiff, where an investigator pretends to be a regular customer, purchases the allegedly infringing product, and keeps the invoice and packaging. Later, this evidence is used not only to show infringement but — more controversially — to argue that the cause of action arose within the territory of the chosen court. Tra...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court Declines to Interfere with Revival of Crocs Inc. USA's Passing Off Suits Against Indian Footwear Manufacturers

  Summary The Supreme Court refused to entertain petitions filed by Bata India and Liberty Shoes challenging the Delhi High Court's July 2025 judgment that restored Crocs Inc. USA's passing off suits against several Indian footwear manufacturers, holding that the trial court must independently consider the cases without being influenced by appellate observations. Background The dispute stems from Crocs Inc. USA's longstanding litigation before the Delhi High Court alleging that multiple Indian footwear companies—including Bata, Liberty, Relaxo, Action Shoes, Aqualite, and Bioworld Merchandising—copied the shape, configuration, and perforated design of its popular foam clogs. Crocs contended that these elements constitute its trade dress or shape trademark, and that the Indian manufacturers were misleading consumers and benefiting from Crocs' global reputation by producing substantially similar footwear designs. February 2019 Single Judge Order In February 2019, a single...
Post a Comment
Read more

DESIGN REGISTRATION AS A DEFENCE IN AN INFRINGEMENT SUIT

  A Critical Analysis of Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd. ( S. J. Kathawalla, J., Bombay High Court, Notice of Motion No. 2269 of 2012 in Suit No. 2012 of 2012, decided May 27, 2014) Core question: Can an infringement suit under Section 22 lie against a person who is himself a registered proprietor of a design? And, on the facts, was there infringement and passing off? Core statutory provisions: Sections 2(c), 6, 11, 19 and 22, Designs Act, 2000 I. Introduction The Designs Act, 2000 grants a registered proprietor a time-bound monopoly over the visual features of an article, but it does not say, in so many words, whether that monopoly can be enforced against another person who has himself managed to register a similar or identical design. Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd. is the leading Bombay High Court authority answering this question, and it did so by adopting — and thereby entrenching — the position first taken by the Delhi High ...
Post a Comment
Read more