Crocs Inc v. Aqualite India Limited and Another

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. FEBRUARY 18, 2019 ak/bs.. (corrected and released on 5th March, 2019)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 18th February, 2019. + CS(COMM) 903/2018 & IA 16586/2018 (u/O XXXIX R-4 CPC) CROCS INC. USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus AQUALITE INDIA LIMITED AND ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Peeyosh Kalra, Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Mr. Rohan Seth and Mr. Dhruv Grover, Advs. AND + CS(COMM) 905/2016 & IA 8606/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) CROCS INC USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Ms. Devyani Nath & Ms. Kaveri Jain, Advs. AND + CS(COMM) 906/2016 & IA 8609/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) CROCS INC USA .... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus BIOWORLD MERCHANDISING INDIA LIMITED ..Defendant Through: Mr. Anil Dutt and Ms. Sutapa Jana, Advs. AND + CS(COMM) 1415/2016 & IA 12767/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) CROCS INC. USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus LIBERTY SHOES LTD & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Devyani Nath, Ms. Kaveri Jain and Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Advs. AND + CS(COMM) 569/2017, IAs 1724 /2018 (u/O XI R-1 CPC) & 6809/2015 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) CROCS INC USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus BATA INDIA LTD & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Neeraj Grover, Mr. Anmol Chadha, Ms. Anushka Arora and Ms. Rudrartii Kaur, Advs. AND + CS(COMM) 571/2017, IAs No.1726/2018 (u/O XI R-1(5) CPC) & IA No.6811/2015 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) CROCS INC USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Gaurav Miglani and Mr. Aanand Raj, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Applications for interim relief, in these suits for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant/s in each of the suit from passing off its/their footwear as that of the plaintiff under the trade mark ‗CROCS', by adopting and copying the shape trade mark/trade dress of the plaintiff, and for ancillary reliefs were for consideration. Mr. Jayant Mehta, arguing for all the defendants, while opposing the applications of the plaintiff for interim relief on merits, also contended that the suits, on the averments in the plaints therein, are not maintainable in the light of the dicta of the Five Judge Bench of this Court in Carlsberg Breweries Vs. Som Distilleries 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12912. The counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate briefed by the counsel for the plaintiff to address on the issue of maintainability, were also heard on the aspect of maintainability. 2. Thus, the very maintainability of the suits is for adjudication and only if the suits are found to be maintainable, the question of entitlement of the plaintiff to interim relief will be considered, and counsels have been heard thereon also. 3. Arguments, common in all the suits, have been heard on 14th, 15th February and today, with reference to CS(COMM.)1415/2016 and the counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaint of the plaintiff in th