Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Crocs Inc vs Www.Fastshoes.In on 11 July, 2024

           IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELAM SINGH
      DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-02, SOUTH EAST
               SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

CS (COMM) No. 683/22
In the matter of
Crocs, INC.
7477 East Dry Creek Parkway,
Niwot Co 80503 U.S.A                                           ......Plaintiff
                                  Versus
1. https://fastshoes.in/
  1205, Laxmi Enclave,
  Katargam, Surat-395004
  F/123, Bapasitaram Shopping Center,
  Near Bapasitaram Chowk,
  Opp. Silver Business Hub,
  Surat, Gujarat - 395010                                   ...Defendant No. 1

2. www.crocsliteride.in
   Riddhi Patel
   Shop No.- 405, Pujan Plaza, B.R.T.S. Road,
   Varchha, Surat, Gujarat, India - 395010    ... Defendant No. 2

3. www.indiancrocs.in/
   Address: Hidden/Unknown                                  ... Defendant No. 3

4. The Department of Telecommunications [DOT]
   Ministry of Communications,
   Government of India, Sanchar Bhawan
   20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001    ... Defendant No. 4

5. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)
   Through the division of Cyber Laws & E-Security
   Government of India,
   Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
   Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003             ... Defendant No. 5

6. National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI)



CS (COMM) 683/22         Crocs, INC. Vs. WWW.Fastshoes.In            Page 1 of 12
      9th Floor, B-Wing, Statesman House,
     148, Barakhamba Road
     New Delhi-110001                                     ... Defendant No. 6

     (Vide order dated 12.01.2024, suit of the plaintiff is partly
     decreed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.4 to 6).

7. GoDaddy.com, LLC                                       ... Defendant No. 7

8. NameCheap, Inc.                                        ... Defendant No. 8


         Date of Institution of suit   : 16.07.2022
         Date of Reserving of judgment : 11.07.2024
         Date of Judgment              : 11.07.2024
         Final Decision                : Decreed

                            JUDGMENT

1. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff company is engaged in the business of manufacture and trade of footwear and allied goods, having the wide spread range in more than 300 styles for men, women and children which are popular in India as well as worldwide. The plaintiff company was founded in the year 2002 by Scott Seamans, Lyndon Duke Hanson, and George, who in the year 2002 coined the trademark Crocs along with the device logo and adopted crocs/CROCS along with device/logo adopted and adopted CROCS as an integral and distinguishing part of their trade name M/s Crocs Inc. The plaintiff company in February, 2018 launched the new 'LITERIDE range of footwear and simultaneously adopted the trademark 'LITERIDE' and shape trademark for which it holds trademark registration in multiple jurisdiction abroad. In the course of its business, the CS (COMM) 683/22 Crocs, INC. Vs. WWW.Fastshoes.In Page 2 of 12 plaintiff has devised several unique shapes, features in relation to its goods and business, some of which have become distinctive of plaintiff's source, origin and authority and are referred to in the market and by the trade as the CROCS footwear and have become an inseparable part of the plaintiff's goods and business.

2. It is further stated that plaintiff's said trademarks are duly registered and/or pending for registration in its favour in India under the Trademarks Act 1999 as per details mentioned in the Para no. 10 of the plaint. The plaintiff has exclusive right to use the said trademark in respect of services/goods for which they are registered. It is further stated that, said trademark includes the art work involved in the plaintiff's CROCS stylized logo (crocs) as well as Duke logo, for formative bearing and lables are original artistic works and copyright there. Further in addition to its statutory right, with the advent of E-commerce, the internet, the trade therein the plaintiff adopted the said trademark CROCS as essential and material parts of its official domain name i.e. www.crocs.com. Apart from that, the plaintiff has an exclusive domain name for assess of consumers viz www.shopcrocs.in.

3. It is further stated that the plaintiff has been carrying on its business activities through various exclusive stores as well as through e-commerce. The plaintiff's goods are also available on various online market places such as www.amazon.in. www.myntra.com. www.ajio.in, etc.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendant(s) no. 1,2 & 3 are engaged in manufacturing, exporting, soliciting, selling CS (COMM) 683/22 Crocs, INC. Vs. WWW.Fastshoes.In Page 3 of 12 advertising and displaying footwear and allied and cognate products (herein referred as impugned goods and impugned business) via their several websites being www.fastshoes.in. www.crocsliteride.in and www.indiacrocs.in respectively and are making such impugned goods available for sale in India. The plaintiff has learned that the defendant no(s). 1, 2 & 3 are selling their goods under the impugned trademarks/labels depicted as "CROCS". The defendant no(s). 1, 2 & 3 are involved in the sale of the impugned goods bearing the impugned marks through their impugned domain names/websites. The defendant no(s). 1, 2 & 3 are not the proprietor of the impugned trademark. They are using the impugned trademark without the leave and license of the plaintiff and they have no right to use it in any manner in relation to its impugned goods and business or for any other specification of the goods and business whatsoever being in violation of the plaintiff's rights both statutory and under common law. The defendant no(s). 7 and 8 are Registrar of said website belonging to defendant no(s). 1, 2 & 3. The plaintiff has also arrayed the defendant no. 4, the Department of Telecommunication, defendant no. 5, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and defendant no. 6, National Internet Exchange of India with a relief for issuance of notification to internet and telecom service providers registered with it to block access of the defendant no(s). 1, 2 & 3 Website. It is submitted that defendant no(s). 1, 2 & 3 are taking advantage of establish goodwill/reputation and proprietary rights of plaintiff's, in the plaintiff's said trademark.

CS (COMM) 683/22 Crocs, INC. Vs. WWW.Fastshoes.In Page 4 of 12

5. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 16.07.2022 before the Ld. Predecessor and on 19.07.2022, an ad- interim ex-parte injunction has been passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. In the meanwhile, defendants were also summoned. Defendant no.1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 were duly served through email on 27.07.2022 and defendant no.2 was duly served on 17.02.2023 and defendant no.4 was duly served on 01.08.2022. However, none has appeared on behalf of abovesaid defendants and no WS has been filed. Hence, vide order dated 31.08.2024, the said defendants were proceeded exparte. Defendant no.6 was duly served on 01.08.2022. WS has been filed only on behalf of defendant no.6. However, vide order dated 12.01.2024, the suit of the plaintiff has been partly decreed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.4 to 6.

6. Thereafter, matter was listed for plaintiff's evidence. Plaintiff has led her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and examined Mrs. Meena Bansal, as PW-1 who has relied upon following documents:

1. True representation of the plaintiff of said trademarks is Ex. PW1/1.
2. True representation of the plaintiff said goods bearing said trademarks is Ex. PW1/2 (Colly.).
3. True representation of the defendant's impugned goods bearing their impugned trademarks is Ex. PW1/3.
4. Comparison chart between the plaintiff's goods bearing its said trademarks and impugned goods of the defendants CS (COMM) 683/22 Crocs, INC. Vs. WWW.Fastshoes.In Page 5 of 12 bearing impugned trademark is Ex. PW1/4 (Colly.).
5. Copies of the status report of the plaintiff's trademark under no. 5497749 for the wordmark LITERIDE in class 25 is Ex. PW1/5A.
6. Copies of the status report of the plaintiff's trademark under no. 5497750 for the wordmark LITERIDE in class 35 is Ex. PW1/5B.
7. Copies of the journal status report of the plaintiff's trademark under no. 1404263 for the wordmark CROCS in class 18, 25, 35, 14 and 9 is Ex. PW1/5C (Colly.).
8. Copies of the registration certificate/ journal copy status report of the plaintiff's trademark under no. 1401264 for the device mark in class 25, 35, 14, 8 and 9 is Ex. PW1/5D (Colly.).
9. Copies of the journal and status report of the plaintiff's trademark under no. 1459770 for the device mark in class 10 is Ex. PW1/5E (Colly.).
10. Copies of the legal proceeding certificate application no.

1401263 and 1401264 in class 25, 35, 18, 14 and 9 is Ex. PW1/6 (Colly.).

11. Copies of the extracts from the WIPO database containing details of plaintiff's trademark across several jurisdiction other than India is Ex. PW1/7 (Colly.).

12. Copies of the registration on the plaintiff's trademarks LITERIDE in WIPO, USPTO, China, Japan and Canada in classes 17 and 25 are Ex. PW1/8 (Colly.).

CS (COMM) 683/22 Crocs, INC. Vs. WWW.Fastshoes.In Page 6 of 12

13. Copies of orders passed by the registrar in favour of plaintiff evidencing its enforcement actions relating to its said trademarks is Ex. PW1/9 (Colly.).

14. Copies of screenshots of plaintiff's website www.crocs.com is Ex. PW1/10 (Colly.).

15. Copies of screenshots of plaintiff's website www.shopcrocs.in is Ex. PW1/11 (Colly.).

16. Copies of the Whois report of the domain name www.crocs.com, www.shopcrocs.in of the plaintiff is Ex. PW1/12 (Colly).

17. Copies of screenshot of defendant's impugned websites www.fastshoes.in, www.crocsliteride.in and www.indiancrocs.in is Ex. PW1/13.

18. Copy of the Whols reports of the domain names www.fastshoes.in, www.crocsliteride.in, and www.indiancrocs.in of the Defendants is Ex. PW 1/14 (Colly).

19. Screenshots of the impugned websites of the Defendants indicating they are mirror of each other is Ex. PW1/15 (Colly.)

20. Details of the test purchase conducted from the website of Defendant No. 1, www.fastshoes.in including copy of order, email confirmation and photos of the product purchased from the impugned website is Ex. PW1/16 (Colly).

21. Details of the test purchase conducted from the website of Defendant No.2, www.crocsliteride.in, including copy of CS (COMM) 683/22 Crocs, INC. Vs. WWW.Fastshoes.In Page 7 of 12 order, and photos of the product purchased from the impugned website is Ex. PW1/17 (Colly.).

22. Details of the test purchase conducted from the website of Defendant 1 www.indiancrocs.in, including copy of the order, email confirmation and photos of the product purchased from the impugned website is Ex. PW1/18 (Colly.).

23. Copies of screenshots of the online presence of Plaintiff over several e-commerce websites including Amazon ,Ajio and Myntra is Ex.PW 1/19(Colly).

24. Copies of screenshots of the social media presence of the Plaintiff on platform including Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and Youtube is Ex.PW 1/20 (Colly),

25. Screenshot in relation to celebrity endorsements of the Literide range of Footwear of Plaintiff is Ex.PW 1/21.

26. Copies of News Articles depicting Priyanka Chopra's deal with Plaintiff in 'Come as you are' Campaign is Ex. PW 1/22(colly).

27. Copies of screenshots of the Plaintiff's website depicting its founding year as 2002 is Ex.PW 1/23 (Colly).

28. Copies of News Articles depicting Plaintiff's adoption of CROCS LITERIDE in 2018 is Ex.PW 1/24.

29. Copies of News Articles depicting the awards won by the Plaintiff are Ex.PW 1/25 (Colly).

30. Copies of Excerpts from the Quarterly reports of the Plaintiff for the quarters ending March and December 2021 is Ex.PW 1/26.

CS (COMM) 683/22 Crocs, INC. Vs. WWW.Fastshoes.In Page 8 of 12

31. Screenshots exhibiting the presence of the exclusive stores of the Plaintiff within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court is Ex.PW 1/27.

32. Copy of the Power-of-Attorney in favour of Mrs. Meena Bansal is Ex. PW 1/28 (Colly).

33. Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW1/B.

7. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no(s). 1, 2 & 3 are selling their goods under the impugned trademarks/labels depicted as "CROCS". The defendant no(s). 1, 2 & 3 are involved in the sale of the impugned goods bearing the impugned marks through their impugned domain names/websites. The defendant no(s). 1, 2 & 3 are not the proprietor of the impugned trademark. They are using the impugned trademark without the leave and license of the plaintiff and they have no right to use it in any manner in relation to its impugned goods and business or for any other specification of the goods and business whatsoever being in violation of the plaintiff's rights both statutory and under common law. The defendant no(s). 7 and 8 are Registrar of said website belonging to defendant no(s). 1, 2 & 3. The plaintiff has also arrayed defendant no. 4, the Department of Telecommunication, defendant no. 5, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and defendant no. 6, National Internet Exchange of India with a relief for issuance of notification to internet and telecom service providers registered with it to block access of the defendant no(s). 1, 2 & 3 Website. It is submitted that defendant no(s). 1, 2 & 3 are taking advantage of establish CS (COMM) 683/22 Crocs, INC. Vs. WWW.Fastshoes.In Page 9 of 12 goodwill/reputation and proprietary rights of plaintiff's, in the plaintiff's said trademark.

8. Vide order dated 12.01.2024, the suit of the plaintiff has been partly decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no.4 to 6.

9. Thus, as a net result of the aforesaid, defendant No. 1 to 3 are hereby restrained through their impugned domain names/websites www.fastshoes.in, www.crocsliteride.in and www.indiancrocs.in and/or any other or further rogue/mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites, on which the plaintiff's said trademarks/copyright/domain names are being infringed, by themselves and also through their individual proprietors/partners, directors, representatives, agents, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on their behalf from using, selling, manufacturing, marketing, intention to sell/solicit, soliciting, exporting, importing, displaying, advertising by visual, audio, print mode or by any other mode or manner dealing in or selling/soliciting through such online websites and/or online platform or through social medias or in any manner using the impugned counterfeit goods under the impugned domain names/websites, impugned trademarks "CROCS" and its variants or any other word/mark which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar word/mark to the plaintiff's said trademark CROCS and LITERIDE and any other formative marks in relation to the impugned goods and business and/or any other allied and cognate products of defendant No. 1 to 3 and from doing any other CS (COMM) 683/22 Crocs, INC. Vs. WWW.Fastshoes.In Page 10 of 12 acts or deeds amounting to or products likely to:

i. Infringement of plaintiff's aforesaid registered Trademarks/Labels (as mentioned in Para No. 10 above). ii. Infringement of plaintiff's domain names (as mentioned in Para No. 18).
iii. Passing off of the plaintiff's rights in the plaintiffs said Trade Marks/Labels.
iv. Violation of the plaintiff's rights in the plaintiff's said Trade Marks/Labels.
v. Infringement of plaintiff's Copyrights.
Defendant no.1 to 3 are further restrained from disposing off or dealing with its assets including its shops, facilities and premises and its stocks-in-trade or any other assets as may be brought to the notice of this Court during the course of the proceedings and on the defendant No. 1 to 3 disclosure thereof and which the defendant No. 1 to 3 are called upon to disclose and/or on its ascertainment by the plaintiff as the plaintiff is not aware of the same as per Section 135 (2) (c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as it could adversely affect the plaintiff's ability to recover the costs and pecuniary reliefs thereon.
Defendant no. 7 and 8 are hereby directed that the respective Domain Name Registrars of the Defendant No. 1-3's impugned domain names/websites, to withdraw any support and block/restrain the websites of Defendant Nos. 1-3 any and/or other or further mirror/redirect/alphanumeric rogue/ Defendant websites CS (COMM) 683/22 Crocs, INC. Vs. WWW.Fastshoes.In Page 11 of 12 of the Nos. 1-3, on which the plaintiff's trademarks/copyright/domain names are being infringed.
Defendant No. 7 and 8 are further directed that the respective Domain Name Registrars of the Defendant Nos. 1-3's impugned websites to disclose the exact ownership details of the Defendant No.1-3's websites, including the names, addresses, email Ids, phone numbers, account details used to make the payment of the impugned domain names and/or such other/further information as may be accessible to the Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 in relation to the impugned domain names/websites and/or any other or further rogue/mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites of the Defendant Nos. 1-3, on which the Plaintiff's said trademarks/copyright/domain names are being infringed. Vide order dated 12.01.2024, the suit of the plaintiff has already been partly decreed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.4, 5 and 6 as they all have undertaken for blocking access to the web pages/URL (s)/domain names of the websites in question/domain names in question.

10. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn and file be consigned to Record Room.

Announced & dictated in the open Court on this 11th July, 2024 (NEELAM SINGH) District Judge (Commercial Court-02) South-East, Saket Courts, ND 11.07.2024 CS (COMM) 683/22 Crocs, INC. Vs. WWW.Fastshoes.In Page 12 of 12 CS (COMM) 683/22 Crocs, INC. Vs. WWW.Fastshoes.In 11.07.2024 Present: Ms. Kanupriya Sabharwal, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.

Defendants are already exparte.

Vide separate judgment announced in the open court, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed.

Decree sheet be drawn by the Reader of this Court and file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

(NEELAM SINGH) District Judge (Commercial Court-02) South-East, Saket Courts, ND 11.07.2024 CS (COMM) 683/22 Crocs, INC. Vs. WWW.Fastshoes.In Page 13 of 12