On a smoggy Saturday afternoon in Gurugram, a Bata store in a centrally-located mall was bustling with kids throwing tantrums, grandmothers being cajoled into replacing their 10-year-old sandals with a new pair, and couples enquiring about wedding formals. 

I asked a salesperson if they sold Crocs, and he promptly ushered me towards a bright, colourful aisle near the checkout counter that said ‘Bata Floatz’. 

“Our clogs are just like Crocs—they’re made from the same material. Lightweight, waterproof, and durable,” he said. 

Bata Floatz is one of the few things buoying Bata India’s flailing boat. 

The four-year-old sub-brand focused on “casual, washable, and comfortable” footwear—think clogs and slippers—has been one of the fastest to cross Rs 100 crore in the history of the footwear retailer. A history that goes back nearly a century in the country. 

While Bata India’s revenue has been stuck at around Rs 3,500 crore for the last three years, Floatz has grown at a little over 30% year-on-year. In fact, managing director and CEO Gunjan Shah has gone so far as to say that he sees no reason why Floatz will not touch Rs 800 crore in the next five years. 

Well, there could be one reason. Litigation. Years and years of it.

For the last decade or so, Bata India has been fighting some version of the same case against American footwear retailer Crocs. Its latest salvo: a 14 November Supreme Court judgement upholding Crocs’ right to file a “passing off” suit against Bata India, Liberty Shoes, and others. 

So, what does this really mean? 

Let’s rewind to 2014, when Crocs first sued Bata India for design infringement in the district court of Delhi, and wrangled an interim injunction prohibiting Bata from selling Crocs’ designs. Court-mandated raids across Bata’s various stores followed. But when the validity of Crocs’ design registration itself was questioned, it tried another tack. 

In 2019, it filed a “passing off” suit against Bata India, which accuses the retailer of trying to pass off its products as those by Crocs. Essentially, this shifted the issue from design infringement (that falls under the Designs Act 2000) to trademark infringement (under the Trade Marks Act 1999).