Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The present set of appeals impugn the common order of a learned single judge, who dismissed the plaintiff (Crocs Inc's) applications, filed in pending suits against the various defendants. The suits - as well as interim injunction applications alleged infringement of designs of which Crocs is the proprietor and owner.

2. Crocs Inc alleged in its suits that two of its registered designs (Registered Design No.197685, and Registered Design No.197686) were infringed by the defendant (herein respondents), i.e. M/s Bata India Ltd, M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd; M/s Relaxo Footwear; M/s Action Shoes Pvt. Ltd; M/s Bio-world Merchandising India Ltd.; Kidz Palace and M/s Aqualite India Ltd. The suits alleged that features of Crocs Inc's design attached to its goods (i.e. footwear) had novel, new, original and unique shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation and composition of lines (design). It was claimed that by virtue of registration obtained by it, Crocs Inc, inter alia, acquired exclusive rights to use, apply, publish, expose and exploit (collectively referred as "use") the designs in relation to its goods and business (covered by it) and to prevent any rival violative third party use thereof. Crocs Inc claimed that it had obtained the exclusive copyrights in the said design registration within the meaning of Section 2(c) and 11 of the Designs Act, 2000 (hereafter "the Act"). It was also alleged that the design of the goods had become well-known with respect to their patterns and had become symbolic to its range of products in such a way that it has gained phenomenal prominence and exclusivity in relation to the products and business. Furthermore, it alleged that the public associates the products bearing that design solely with Crocs Inc only. Ever since the designs were propounded in the years of its respective registration and after the date of the designs' registration/application, Crocs had been using them in relation to its goods and business continuously, regularly and uninterruptedly in the course of trade and had built up a valuable trade, goodwill and reputation, both in India and overseas. Crocs Inc also alleged that it was carrying on its business extensively in relation to those goods and business in more than 90 countries through its various affiliates, associates, subsidiaries, licensees, etc. and also through its websites, worldwide under the domain name www.crocs.com and in India under the domain name www.crocsindia.com.

6. Each suit relied on several documents; including the registration certificates in respect of the two designs; the plaintiff also relied on registration certificates issued for its designs and trademarks in various countries (Ecuador, Bolivia, Columbia, etc) to establish its widespread recognition and the association of its designs with its products in the market place. The Court had granted ex-parte ad -interim injunction; after receipt of summons the defendants contested the proceedings and also applied for vacation of ex-parte orders.

45. That brings this court to two surviving aspects: of de-linking the design infringement suits from the passing off suits and the costs imposed. The single judge had de-linked two suits [CS(OS)Nos.52/2018 and 53/2018] on a separate date, delinking them from the other suits. These other suits had claimed design infringement; the two suits (that were de-linked) concerned passing off claims. This procedure, of de-linking was not appropriate, given that the directions in Mohan Lal (where the Full Bench had stated that the two causes of action could not be clubbed, but that the separate suits had to be listed and heard together) were operative. Of course, Mohan Lal has since been overruled on that point subsequently, in Carlsberg v Som Distilleries A/S, 2018 SCC OnLine 12912. However, because two separate set of suits had been preferred by Crocs Inc and they were travelling together, so to say, it was not appropriate that the passing off suits/ shape mark infringement claims were segregated. Furthermore, in the composite suits, there was a subsisting ad-interim injunction. In view of the impugned order, which does not contain separate reasons for vacating the injunction so far as it concerns the passing off claims, this court is of the opinion that in the said two suits the single judge should - along with the suits containing passing off claims, hear the matter. However, this observation does not in any manner mean that the findings with respect to the merits of the claim for ad interim injunction in regard to the design infringement claims of the single judge are interfered with in any manner; for the reasons discussed above, they are affirmed.

32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, while dismissing the injunction applications filed by the plaintiff in the suits, in favour of the defendants in the suit each of the defendants costs are awarded being costs incurred by them towards fees paid and payable till date by these defendants to their counsels. In this regard, affidavits of fees and charges paid and to be paid till date by the defendants to their counsels be filed by filing affidavits within two weeks from today and which affidavits will be supported by the details of the payments made by the defendants to their counsels. Such costs shall be the costs in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff with respect to and till the stage of disposal of the interim injunction applications. Costs shall be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants within a period of four weeks of the affidavits of costs being filed by the defendants.