Delhi High Court Directs Crocs Inc USA Official To Appear Virtually In Dispute With Bata India

The Delhi High Court has recently directed that an authorised competent official of Crocs Inc. USA appear virtually before it on the next date of hearing, as it considers an application filed by Bata India Ltd seeking costs in the design infringement suit.

A single-bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh passed the orders on February 7.

Bata India has moved an application under Sections 35 and 35A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking orders of costs towards contesting the suit proceedings.

It submitted that it had incurred substantial costs in defending the litigation and was put to enormous distress due to an interim injunction obtained by Crocs.

The suit had been filed by Crocs Inc. USA seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of its registered design in respect of “Footwear under Class 02-04.”

An ad-interim injunction was granted on August 21, 2014 against the defendants, including Bata India Ltd. The injunction was vacated on February 8, 2018. During the pendency of the suit, by order dated May 9, 2019, the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs cancelled the registered design on the ground of lack of novelty and prior publication, holding that the features stated to be added were not sufficient to alter the character or identity of previously published designs known to the art.

In view of the cancellation of the design, the suit was disposed of on July 12, 2023.

Opposing the present application, counsel for Crocs submitted that costs had been given up and waived as the final disposal order did not award costs any costs to Bata

Justice Singh, however, observed that “mere non-mention of the costs in the order dated 12th July, 2023 cannot prima facie amount to waiver.” The Court further noted that in commercial matters, the decision of the Supreme Court in Uflex Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.(2021) is clear that costs ought to be awarded, which is also the principle underlying Sections 35 and 35A of the CPC.

The Court also recorded that no official of Crocs Inc. USA, having its address in Colorado, U.S.A., had either appeared in the matter or filed an affidavit. It noted that the initial plaint was signed by persons associated with counsel in the present case and that the resolution-cum-authority in favour of Rishi Bansal had been signed by Sara Havestock, Assistant Secretary of the company.

Under these circumstances, the Court directed that an authorised competent official of Crocs Inc. USA appear virtually on the next date of hearing.

Bata India has been directed to file a statement of costs. The matter is listed for March 12, 2026.