The Delhi High Court recently passed an ex-parte interim injunction in favour of global footwear company Crocs Inc and its subsidiary and restrained Questsole (defendant) and its proprietor Sagar Doijode from manufacturing, advertising, or selling clog-style footwear and shoe charms that imitate Crocs’ patented and trademarked products [Crocs Vs Sagar Doijode].

Justice Tejas Karia said that Crocs made out a prima facie case of infringement and Questsole’s use of deceptively similar marks, designs, and product features was “nothing but an attempt to ride the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs so as to cause confusion in the market.”

The Court found that Crocs held valid intellectual property rights including patent, trademarks ‘CROCS’ and ‘JIBBITZ’ and Design and its products were globally recognized and distinctive.

Crocs moved the Court alleging that Questsole’s “charms for clog-style footwear” and shoes copied its Jibbitz accessories and clog design in every essential respect.

Crocs contended that test purchases from Questsole’s website and listings on Amazon and Flipkart revealed an identical system for attaching decorative accessories to shoes. It replicated the elements protected under Crocs’ patent, including the shaft, shoulders and insertion mechanism.

Crocs also produced comparison charts showing Questsole’s footwear to be visually indistinguishable from its Geometric Clogs trade dress, characterized by the rounded toe box, thick Croslite sole, pivoting heel strap and patterned ventilation holes.

Crocs further claimed that Questsole had used confusingly similar marks such as ‘CROCKS’, ‘CROC’, and ‘JIBIT’, and had promoted its products using Crocs’ imagery and keywords.

Justice Karia noted that Crocs had demonstrated continuous market presence and goodwill and that its trademarks, designs, and trade dress had acquired distinctiveness through extensive use. He held that Crocs had shown a prima facie case for infringement and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour.

Finding that irreparable injury would be caused to Crocs if interim protection were denied, the Court restrained Questsole and its associates from:

• Using or selling any footwear or charms under the marks ‘CROCKS’, ‘CROC’, ‘JIBIT’, or any other mark deceptively similar to ‘CROCS’ or ‘JIBBITZ’;

• Manufacturing or offering shoe charms replicating the Crocs system for decorative accessories;

• Using or marketing any footwear design identical or deceptively similar to Crocs’ clog design; and

• Promoting or selling footwear imitating the distinctive Crocs trade dress.

The injunction extends to Questsole’s website questsole.com, its associated portal buildingshop.in, and all third-party e-commerce platforms including Amazon, Flipkart and IndiaMart.

The matter will next be heard on February 16, 2026.

Crocs was represented by advocates Gaurav Gogia and Mayank Saraf from United & United.

[Read Order]