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
The North Face Apparel CorpvsController of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private LimitedvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Apex Laboratories Pvt LtdvsElder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT (TM No. 487453 in Class 5) since 1988, sought interim injunction against Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care for using the deceptively similar mark NEO ZINCOVIT. The applicant also claimed copyright infringement of its registered artistic works (A-108878/2014) covering colour scheme, get-up, and layout. The Madras High Court was satisfied that the respondents were attempting to piggyback on the applicant's goodwill and granted interim injunctions on all three applications covering trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Radico Khaitan LimitedvsPicadilly Agro Industries Limited
This Special Leave Petition arose from a judgment dated 29-05-2026 in CS No. 8/2025 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, Haryana, concerning a trademark dispute over the marks 'Cashmere' and 'Kashmyr' used in relation to beer and vodka. The Supreme Court noted that a First Appeal (FAO-COM-11-2026) was already pending before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, listed for 28.10.2026. The Court disposed of the SLP without adjudicating it on merits, requesting the High Court to pass an appropriate order regarding the ad interim injunction on the scheduled date.
Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.)vsMaharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
The plaintiff, Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University, alleging infringement and passing off regarding the use of the words 'Maharaja Agrasen' in the defendant's name. The Delhi High Court had previously granted a restraint order on 10.07.2026. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a settlement dated 14.09.2026, under which the defendant agreed to change its name through a statutory amendment while being permitted limited transitional use of its existing name. The court recorded the settlement, modified the interim order accordingly, and listed the matter for compliance reporting on 13.07.2027.
Varahi Diamonds And Finance LimitedvsSahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited against Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The order is primarily procedural, dealing with the registration of the plaint, issuance of summons, directions for filing pleadings, and an interim injunction application. The matter was referred to mediation, with parties directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
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.