Court Orders Plaintiff to Pay Rs. 24,63,400 to Bata India Ltd. Following Design Cancellation and Litigation Costs
In a significant judgment delivered on July 2, 2026, the Delhi High Court has ordered Crocs Inc. USA to pay Rs. 24,63,400/- in actual costs to Bata India Ltd., marking a decisive moment in the ongoing litigation concerning design infringement. The case, which revolved around the infringement of a registered design for footwear, culminated after the design was canceled due to lack of novelty and prior publication.
The legal proceedings initiated by Crocs Inc. USA aimed at securing a permanent injunction against Bata India Ltd. for allegedly infringing on their design registration. The plaintiff claimed that their design was novel and accused the defendant of fraudulent imitation. However, the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, on May 9, 2019, canceled the design registration, citing the design's lack of originality and novelty, thus rendering the suit untenable.
Presiding Judge Prathiba M. Singh emphasized the importance of awarding realistic costs in commercial litigation, adhering to principles established under Section 35 and 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Delhi High Court Original Side Rules, 2018. The judgment also referenced the Supreme Court precedent in Uflex Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., underscoring that costs should serve as a deterrent to frivolous litigation.
The litigation saw Crocs Inc. USA initially securing an ex-parte ad-interim injunction from the District Court, which was later vacated by the High Court after finding the design to be non-novel. Subsequent appeals by Crocs Inc. USA were dismissed, including a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court, which upheld the High Court's award of costs.
Despite the cancellation of the design and the termination of the suit, Crocs Inc. USA retains the right to seek remedies if the cancellation order is reversed in an appeal. The court's decision not only highlights the judicial system's commitment to curbing non-meritorious litigation but also reinforces the principle that parties must face the financial consequences of their legal battles.
The ruling mandates Crocs Inc. USA to settle the costs within three months, effectively concluding one of the many battles fought between the two commercial entities over intellectual property rights. The judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in balancing the scales of justice by ensuring fair compensation for legal expenses incurred during prolonged litigation.
Bottom line:-
Costs awarded in commercial litigation must reflect actual expenses incurred, including legal fees and out-of-pocket costs, as per principles established under Section 35 and 35A of the CPC, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Delhi High Court Original Side Rules, 2018.
Statutory provision(s): Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Sections 35, 35A), Designs Act, 2000, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Delhi High Court Original Side Rules, 2018
Crocs Inc USA v. Bata India Ltd., (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2937627
