The Delhi High Courthas directed footwear manufacturer Crocs Inc. USA to pay ₹24.63 lakh costs to Bata India Ltd. in a long-running design infringement dispute, reiterating that in commercial litigation, costs must ordinarily follow the event.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh passed the order while deciding Bata’s application seeking costs under Sections 35 and 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court observed that Crocs’ registered design, which formed the basis of the infringement suit, had already been cancelled for lack of novelty and prior publication, leaving the suit with no surviving cause of action.
The suit was instituted in 2014 alleging infringement of Crocs’ registered footwear design. At the initial stage, the trial court granted an ex parte injunction and appointed Local Commissioners, who seized a substantial quantity of the allegedly infringing footwear from the defendants’ premises. However, in 2018, the Delhi High Court vacated the injunction after holding that the design lacked novelty, a finding that was subsequently upheld by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court also declined to interfere, while making the interim costs subject to the outcome of the suit.
Subsequently, in 2019, the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs cancelled Crocs’ registered design on the ground that it was neither new nor original and had been previously published. Taking note of the cancellation, the High Court disposed of the infringement suit in 2023, while leaving Crocs at liberty to pursue remedies if the cancellation order was reversed in appeal.
While considering Bata’s application for costs, the Court noted that the defendants had been compelled to litigate before the District Court, the High Court, the Division Bench and the Supreme Court over several years. It also observed that the interim injunction had adversely affected Bata’s business and resulted in the seizure of its products before ultimately being vacated.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Uflex Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2021 INSC 492, the Court reiterated that in commercial disputes, successful parties should ordinarily be awarded realistic litigation costs to discourage frivolous or meritless litigation. Since Bata’s statement of actual costs amounting to ₹24,63,400 was not disputed by Crocs, the Court directed the plaintiff to pay the amount within three months. The Court further ordered that upon payment of the costs, the pending execution proceedings would also stand disposed of.
