Injunction granted to Crocs against Questsole for IP infringement
Injunction granted to Crocs against Questsole for IP infringement
The suit revolved around Crocs’ Patent No. IN 271337, which protects its system for attaching decorative accessories to shoes, as well as its registered trademarks “CROCS” and “JIBBITZ” and the registered design for its geometric clog-style footwear.
Recently, the Delhi High Court has restrained Questsole and its proprietor, Sagar Doijode, from manufacturing, advertising, or selling clog-style footwear and charms that imitate Crocs’ iconic products. The ex-parte interim injunction came in a commercial intellectual property suit filed by Crocs Inc. and its subsidiary.
The suit revolved around Crocs’ Patent No. IN 271337, which protects its system for attaching decorative accessories to shoes, as well as its registered trademarks “CROCS” and “JIBBITZ” and the registered design for its geometric clog-style footwear. Questsole was selling identical or deceptively similar footwear and shoe charms through its website questsole.com and e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart and IndiaMart, Crocs argued. Crocs also argued that Questsole’s products copied its patented Jibbitz accessories and the entire attachment mechanism described in its patent.
Questsole had been using deceptive marks such as “CROCKS,” “CROC,” and “JIBIT,” to mislead consumers and exploit Crocs’ goodwill; Crocs further contended.
Questsole’s footwear designs also copied Crocs’ trade dress, recognizable by its rounded toe box, pivoting heel strap, ventilation holes, and thick Croslite sole. The defendants were also accused by the plaintiffs of posting judgemental videos on social media, falsely claiming superiority over Crocs’ products in a bid to harm its brand reputation.
Crocs was the lawful proprietor of the patent, trademarks, and design in question; Justice Tejas Karia observed. The brand had gained global recognition through innovation, consistent use and high-profile collaborations; the Court observed. Questsole’s conduct amounted to “nothing but an attempt to ride the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs so as to cause confusion in the market”; Justice Karia said.
Test purchases made by Crocs – which showed that Questsole’s footwear and charms personified the patented features, including the shaft, shoulders and insertion system were also relied upon by the Court.
The Crocs-produced comparison charts showed that Questsole’s products were visually impossible to tell apart from Crocs’ geometric clogs. The similarities in shape, structure, and function satisfied all essential elements of patent and design infringement, the Court found.
The Court held that the balance of convenience lay in Crocs’ favour and that any refusal of interim protection would cause irreparable harm to Crocs. The Court restrained Questsole and its associates from using the marks “CROCKS,” “CROC,” “JIBIT,” or any other deceptively similar names, and from producing, marketing, or selling footwear or charms replicating Crocs’ patented system or registered design.
