Delhi High Court Clarifies IP Law: Passing Off Claims Can Stand on Registered Designs

In a landmark judgment with far-reaching implications for intellectual property jurisprudence in India, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has ruled that a common law action for passing off is maintainable even if the subject matter is a design registered under the Designs Act, 2000. The ruling restores a series of lawsuits filed by U.S. footwear giant Crocs Inc. against Indian manufacturers like Bata, Liberty, and Relaxo , setting the stage for a full trial on the merits of its trade dress claims.

A Division Bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul overturned a contentious 2019 decision by a single judge, who had dismissed Crocs ' suits at a preliminary stage. The Bench's comprehensive 70-page judgment in M/S Crocs Inc USA v. M/S Bata India & Ors decisively settles a long-standing debate on the overlap between design rights and trademark-related protections, affirming that the two legal regimes can operate concurrently.

The court directed that the suits be restored to the file of the single judge to proceed with the trial, where Crocs will have the opportunity to prove that the distinctive shape of its clogs has acquired the status of a trade dress and that the defendants' products are likely to cause consumer confusion.

---

Background of the Dispute: The "Dual Monopoly " Dilemma

Between 2016 and 2017, Crocs Inc. initiated multiple lawsuits before the Delhi High Court. The central allegation was that several Indian footwear companies—including Bata India, Liberty Shoes, Relaxo Footwear, Aqualite, and others—were manufacturing and selling footwear that slavishly imitated the unique shape, configuration, and perforated design of its iconic foam clogs.

Crocs advanced its case on two parallel fronts: 1. Design Infringement: It filed suits for statutory infringement based on its designs registered under the Designs Act, 2000. 2. Passing Off: It filed separate "Shape Trademark Suits" (STSs), arguing that the clog's overall appearance had, through extensive use and promotion, acquired a secondary meaning and become a distinctive source identifier. This "trade dress," Crocs contended, was protectable under the common law tort of passing off, which safeguards the goodwill and reputation of a business from misrepresentation.

In a ruling on February 18, 2019, a single judge dismissed the passing off suits, holding them to be legally non-maintainable. The core of the single judge's reasoning was the concern of a "dual monopoly." It was held that since Crocs had already availed of the limited-term protection (a maximum of 15 years) offered by the Designs Act, it could not seek a potentially perpetual monopoly for the same product shape under the common law of passing off. This, the court reasoned, would defeat the legislative intent of the Designs Act, which is designed to grant a temporary exclusive right to novel aesthetic features before they enter the public domain.

The single judge interpreted the five-judge bench decision in Carlsberg Breweries A/S v. Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd (2019) to mean that a passing off claim could not be founded on the very features that were registered as a design.

The Division Bench's Decisive Reversal

The Division Bench meticulously deconstructed the single judge's reasoning and the precedents relied upon. It held that the dismissal of the suits at a preliminary stage was an error in law, as it conflated the distinct nature of design infringement and passing off.

The Bench articulated that the two remedies are conceptually different and protect different interests: * Design Infringement: Protects the novelty and originality of the aesthetic features of an article. The cause of action is the defendant's fraudulent or obvious imitation of the registered design. * Passing Off: Protects the goodwill and reputation vested in a mark or trade dress. The cause of action is the defendant's misrepresentation to the public that its goods are those of the plaintiff, leading to consumer confusion and damage to the plaintiff's business.

In a crucial passage, the court affirmed the independent nature of the common law remedy:

“Passing off is a distinct right, which resides in its own common law space, apart from and independent of, the confines and constraints of the Trade Marks Act, or the Designs Act, or, for that matter, any other statute.”

Reinterpreting Precedent: Mohan Lal and Carlsberg

A significant portion of the judgment was dedicated to clarifying the jurisprudence flowing from two key full-bench decisions of the Delhi High Court: Mohan Lal v. Sona Paints & Hardwares (2013) and Carlsberg Breweries .

The Division Bench found that the single judge had misread Carlsberg . Far from precluding a passing off action, the Carlsberg decision had, in fact, endorsed the view in Mohan Lal —that if elements of a design are used not merely as a mark but as a "larger trade dress get up," a sustainable claim for passing off would lie.

The Bench held that there is no requirement for a plaintiff to base its passing off case on "something more" than the subject matter of its design claim. The court stated:

“The very same subject matter can, therefore, constitute the basis of the claim of design infringement, as well as the claim of passing off.”

This clarification is pivotal. It means a brand owner is not forced to choose between design protection and common law rights. The same set of features on a product can be protected as a novel design and, if they acquire distinctiveness as a source identifier, can also be protected as a trade dress against passing off.

Legal and Commercial Implications

This ruling is a significant victory for brand owners, particularly in industries like fashion, consumer goods, and electronics, where product design is integral to brand identity.

1. Strengthening Trade Dress Protection: The decision robustly affirms that product shape and configuration can function as powerful source identifiers. It reassures brand owners that the investment in creating and popularizing a unique product look can be protected under common law, even after statutory design rights expire, provided the necessary goodwill and reputation can be established.

2. Clarifying Overlapping IP Rights: The judgment provides much-needed clarity on the concurrent availability of remedies under the Designs Act and common law. It dismantles the "dual monopoly" argument as a bar to a passing off suit, reframing the issue as one of two distinct rights protecting two distinct legal interests.

3. Procedural Guidance: The court's decision to restore the suits for trial underscores that claims of passing off in such cases are fact-intensive. A plaintiff must be given the opportunity to lead evidence to prove the elements of a passing off claim—namely, goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. These are not matters that can be decided by a "mere reading of the plaint."

4. Strategic Considerations for IP Holders: Brand owners can now more confidently pursue a dual-pronged strategy: register new and original designs for immediate statutory protection while simultaneously building a case for common law protection by demonstrating that the design functions as a trademark in the minds of consumers.

The case will now return to the single judge, where Crocs will need to prove its assertions on the merits. This will involve presenting evidence of its reputation, the distinctiveness of its clog design, and instances of consumer confusion. The Indian footwear companies will, in turn, have the opportunity to defend their case, potentially by challenging the novelty of Crocs ' design or arguing that their products are not deceptively similar.

This judgment solidifies the principle that while the Designs Act provides a specific, time-bound monopoly for aesthetics, it does not extinguish the separate and enduring common law right to protect a business's hard-earned reputation from being usurped by imitators.