Short Summary
Crocs Inc. filed a lawsuit against Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited for trademark infringement. The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant, restraining them from manufacturing and selling footwear that infringes Crocs' trademark. The court also directed the defendant to maintain and preserve accounts and documents related to the manufacture and sale of the impugned products.
Detailed Summary
[Cites
4
, Cited by
0
]
Delhi High Court - Orders
Crocs Inc. & Anr vs Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited on 13 April, 2026
Author:
Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench:
Tushar Rao Gedela
$~35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 388/2026
CROCS INC. & ANR. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali R.
Mittal, Mr. Siddhant Chamola, Ms.
Gitanjali Sharma and Mr. Shivang
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
SUMMERSALT LIFESTYLE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Defendant
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER
% 13.04.2026
I.A. 10064/2026 (Additional Documents)
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under
Order XI Rule 1(4)
of the Code of Civil Procedure
, 1908 ('
CPC
') as
applicable to commercial suits under the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015
('
CC
Act
') seeking leave to place on record additional documents.
2. The plaintiffs are permitted to file additional documents in accordance
with the provisions of the
CC Act
and the Delhi High Court (Original Side)
Rules, 2018.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 10066/2026 (Pre-Institution Mediation)
4. This is an application filed by the plaintiffs seeking exemption from
instituting pre-litigation Mediation under
Section 12A
of the CC Act.
5. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in
Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi
:
(2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution
CS(COMM) 388/2026 Page 1 of 22
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 21:05:30
Mediation is granted.
6. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 10065/2026 (Exemption)
7. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under
Section 151
of CPC seeking exemption from filing clearer copies of dim documents along
with the captioned suit.
8. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. However, the clearer
copies of dim documents with proper margins be filed within two weeks with
an advance copy to the defendant.
9. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 10063/2026 (Seeking administration of interrogatories upon
defendant)
10. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order XI
Rule 2 (as amended by the
CC Act, 2015
) read with
Section 151
of the CPC,
1908 seeking administration of interrogatories upon the defendant.
11. Issue Notice.
12. Let the Reply to the Application be filed within a period of four weeks
from date. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks
thereafter.
13. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 09.07.2026 for completion
of service and pleadings.
14. List before this Court on 29.09.2026.
I.A. 10067/2026 (Seeking
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Crocs Inc. & Anr vs Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rajnikant Devidas ShroffvsPharma Chem
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the defendants regarding the patent rights related to the manufacturing process of Phosphorous Pentachloride. The court framed several issues, including infringement, entitlement to injunction and damages, and the validity/revocation of Patent No. 172459.
M/s.Moti And CompanyvsM/s.B.Braun Melsungen AG
M/s. Moti And Company filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking the revocation or invalidation of Patent No. 221306 held by M/s. B.Braun Melsungen AG. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the patent had already expired on July 13, 2021.
Bisleri International Private LimitedvsBelaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry
Bisleri International Private Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry, alleging that the Defendant was manufacturing and selling packaged drinking water under the deceptively similar mark 'Bislie'. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant had merely deleted the letter 'r' and interchanged the positions of 'e' and 'i' from the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'Bisleri', along with copying the artistic work, colour scheme, and trade dress. Despite service, the Defendant failed to appear, and the Court allowed the Interim Application and Leave Petition, granting ad-interim relief including injunction and appointment of a Court Receiver.
Chemo Healthcare Private LimitedvsExaminer Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court allowed Chemo Healthcare Private Limited's appeal against the rejection of its trademark registration for 'VILDAZE'. The court held that despite objections raised under Section 11(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, the appellant was entitled to have the mark advertised. This decision allows the applicant to establish prior use and address any third-party opposition on its merits.
M/S RSPL HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITEDvsGovind Rathore
The plaintiff, M/S RSPL Health Private Limited, filed a commercial suit alleging infringement and passing off under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and Copyright Act, 1957. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of the plaintiff's registered trademarks (GHARI/GHADI) and associated trade dress by the defendants in relation to FMCG goods like soap and detergents. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.