Crocs Files Design Infringement Lawsuit Against Domestic Company, Then Loses Case

Seoul Central District Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul. Photo by Moon Honam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] Crocs, famous for rubber slippers with holes on the front, filed a lawsuit against a domestic company for design rights infringement but lost the case.

According to the court on the 18th, the Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 60 (Chief Presiding Judge Kim Jeongjung) recently ruled against Crocs in the first trial of the design rights infringement injunction lawsuit filed against Company A.

Crocs claimed that "(the defendant's product design, produced and sold since March 2018,) is similar to the registered design for which the plaintiff holds the design rights," and argued that "the defendant's production and sale of this product infringes the plaintiff's design rights related to the registered design in this case, and therefore, production, use, import, and export should be prohibited."

They also demanded that "the defendant dispose of products stored in offices, business locations, factories, and warehouses," and claimed 100 million KRW as partial damages.

On the other hand, Company A countered that "the registered design in this case is not new as it is the same or similar to previously registered prior designs, and it can be easily created by combining prior designs."

The first trial sided with Company A. The court stated, "(According to Supreme Court precedents) when there is a defense that the claim constitutes an abuse of rights in a design rights infringement lawsuit, the court handling the case may examine and judge whether the registered design is 'easily created' or not," and declared, "The registered design in this case can be easily created by combining prior designs, and it is clear that the design registration will be invalidated through an invalidation trial."

The court found that ▲the overall shape as a closed-toe slipper, ▲the position and number of multiple ventilation holes on the upper part of the instep cover, ▲the open back part, ▲and the rotatable band-type hook attached to the lower back sides of the instep cover, are all features seen in prior designs before the application of the design Crocs claims.

Furthermore, "the parts not appearing in prior designs are limited to the presence or absence of a decorative band attached to the front lower part and about one-third of the side, and the position of stripes on the lower part," and "partially modifying or combining each prior design results in a design with a low level of creativity that an ordinary designer can easily create," the court added.