Written by
Ms.Komalika Bar (BCOM, LLB)
In a significant development for intellectual property and commercial litigation in India, the High Court of Delhi has delivered a definitive order on the long-standing design infringement battle between footwear giant Crocs Inc. USA and Bata India Ltd. Handed down under the neutral citation 2026:DHC:5476 by Justice Prathiba M. Singh, the ruling in Crocs Inc USA v. M/s Bata India Ltd and Ors. (CS(COMM) 625/2018) strongly reinforces a major rule in corporate litigation: "costs must follow the cause". This decision signals a firm shift toward making losing parties bear the actual, real-world litigation expenses incurred by the winners of a dispute.
The legal battle began back in 2014 when Crocs Inc. filed a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against Bata India Ltd. Crocs claimed exclusive rights over the shape, features, and configuration of its clog footwear design under Design Registration No. 197685, accusing Bata of fraudulent and obvious imitation. While Crocs initially secured an ex-parte interim injunction in August 2014—which led to the seizure of substantial inventory from Bata—the case quickly unraveled under closer judicial review.
Bata aggressively challenged the suit, presenting a defense centered on the invalidity of the design due to a lack of novelty and prior public availability. In February 2018, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court agreed, vacating the interim injunction in this suit and seven other connected cases. The court found that the footwear design previously existed in the public domain and awarded initial costs against Crocs. Crocs escalated the matter to the Division Bench and eventually to the Supreme Court of India, but both forums upheld the removal of the injunction. The Supreme Court specifically directed that the ultimate assignment of interim costs would be subject to the final outcome of the suit.
Parallel to the courtroom drama, the foundational basis of the lawsuit vanished. In May 2019, the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs officially cancelled Crocs’ design registration on the grounds that it was not new or original, as the style had already been published and known to the art beforehand. Because the core design registration no longer existed, the Delhi High Court formally disposed of the main infringement suit on July 12, 2023. The court left open a narrow window for restoration only if Crocs successfully overturned the cancellation in a separate statutory appeal, but Crocs ultimately withdrew that challenge.
With the main suit put to rest, the stage was set for a massive battle over legal expenses. Bata filed a strategic application (I.A. 25948/2023) under Sections 35 and 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), demanding that Crocs pay for the total actual costs incurred over the twelve-year litigation. The application forced the High Court to address three core legal issues:
Whether a defendant is entitled to actual litigation costs when a commercial suit is disposed of because the plaintiff's intellectual property right was cancelled mid-litigation.
Whether the mere omission of a costs directive in the final suit disposal order from July 2023 operated as a waiver of the right to claim those costs.
What constitutes an appropriate and fair quantum of "actual costs" when two financially robust corporate entities engage in extensive litigation across multiple court tiers.
In evaluating these questions, the court relied heavily on a specialized legal framework designed to curb vexatious corporate legal tactics. The primary mechanism was Section 35 of the CPC (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015), which mandates that the defeated party in a commercial dispute pays the costs of the successful party as a rule, unless the court states specific reasons to the contrary. The court also invoked Section 35A of the CPC to deter frivolous claims through compensatory costs, Section 151 of the CPC to preserve its inherent powers to ensure justice, and Chapter XXIII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, which outlines how actual expenditures—ranging from court fees and typing to senior advocate retainers—are structurally computed.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh ruled entirely in favor of the Defendant, Bata India Ltd. Addressing the procedural defense raised by the plaintiff, the court held that the lack of a explicit mention of costs in the July 2023 disposal order did not equal a waiver by Bata, as the suit’s finality had been explicitly tied to the outcome of external appeals. Turning to the merits of the cost application, the Court cited the landmark Supreme Court decision in Uflex Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2021), emphasizing that commercial litigation requires realistic, actual cost awards to ensure that financially strong entities face the real consequences of their legal strategies and to deter "luxury litigation" driven by ego or market dominance.
Bata presented an itemized bill of costs totaling ₹24,63,400, supported by documentation and an affidavit covering their defenses across the District Court, High Court, Division Bench, and the Supreme Court. Since Crocs did not dispute the calculation, the court accepted the amount as an accurate reflection of genuine legal fees and out-of-pocket expenses. Consequently, the High Court directed Crocs Inc. USA to pay Bata India Ltd. the exact sum of ₹24,63,400 within a period of three months.
The final resolution of the Crocs v. Bata saga stands as a clear warning to the corporate ecosystem. The Delhi High Court’s order firmly establishes that corporations cannot launch expansive infringement actions on the back of weak or non-novel IP without risking serious financial liabilities if those underlying rights are struck down. By forcing Crocs to fully indemnify Bata's actual defense costs, the judiciary has sent a clear message: commercial litigation is an exercise in financial accountability, and dragging a competitor through a decade of litigation on a cancelled foundation means paying for the opponent's warfare.