Delhi High Court upholds interim ban on Acqualite making Hawai slippers similar to Relaxo

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld an interim order restraining Aqualite from manufacturing slippers that allegedly infringe the registered designs of Relaxo's Hawai slippers, the Indian avatar of flip flops [Acqualite Industries Private Ltd v Relaxo Footwears Limited].

A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla ruled that the single-judge's order of interim injunction against Aqualite was justified and the company appeal against the order lacked merit.

"Aqualite’s footwear is identical, in shape and configuration, to the footwear forming subject matter of the suit designs, and the registration of the suit designs is not, prima facie, liable to cancellation under Section 19 of the Designs Act, the learned Single Judge has, to our view, correctly injuncted Aqualite from manufacturing or dealing in footwear which replicates the suit designs or is deceptively similar, in design, thereto," the Court concluded.

Thus, it rejected Acqualite's appeal.

The single-judge had in October 2021 passed the order restraining Aqualite from producing slippers similar to Relaxo’s “Bahamas” range, particularly models BHG 136 and BHG 137.

Relaxo’s designs, registered in 2019, feature distinctive “crenellation-like” vertical side ridges.

Aqualite argued that these ridges lacked novelty and had appeared in at least seven prior designs, including those of third-party manufacturers. It also claimed that the injunction had been granted without proper pleadings, as summons in the suit was issued only after judgment was reserved in the injunction application.

The Division Bench conducted its own comparison of Relaxo’s side-ridge pattern with the prior arts and concluded that the asserted designs had a distinct visual character.

It added that footwear designs allow limited room for novelty due to functional constraints, but the ridges used by Relaxo were sufficiently unique to constitute a registrable design.

"The human foot is, howsoever one may view it, a peculiarly shaped body part. It is narrow at one end and wide at the other, with five toes, each of which, in itself, is individually and peculiarly contoured. Footwear, therefore, by its very nature, is an item in respect of which there is very limited scope of novelty. In order to be utilitarian, footwear has to correspond to the shape of the foot, and yet not be ungainly in appearance," the Court observed.

Therefore, the it concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the injunction order.

[Read Judgment]