ASWAL ASSOCIATES- Intellectual Property Law firm India

  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...

  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 ...