Contentious Clog Design Crocked

22 Mar 2018

The footwear brand Crocs is famous for its divisive design of plastic clogs – loved and hated equally by fashionistas across the globe.

In a recent ruling on appeal from the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”), the General Court of the EU has cancelled Crocs’ Community Registered Design for its plastic clogs (applied for in November 2004) on the basis the design was disclosed to the public more than 12 months prior to its registration. Unlike patents, designs can be disclosed in the 12 months prior to seeking a registration for them in the EU, known as the grace period, without the designs losing their novelty which would otherwise invalidate the subsequent registration.

Crocs did not deny that three disclosures outside of the grace period has taken place; (i) the design was displayed on its website (ii) the design was exhibited at an exhibition in Fort Lauderdale, and (iii) the design was sold within its US distribution and retail network.

However, Crocs position was that all disclosures had taken place outside of the EU and under the Community Design Regulation disclosures are not be taken into account if the disclosure could not reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the Community.

Crocs argued that the disclosures in the US would not have been known about by footwear brands in the EU.

The court rejected this entirely and upheld the EUIPO’s decision that Crocs’ design was invalid due to a prior disclosure to the public. Croc’s website was accessible world wide and displayed the contested Crocs’ design. Furthermore, the exhibiting of the design at an international footwear industry exhibition (which Crocs reported on its website had been a “smashing success”) and the fact the design was sold within Crocs’ US distribution and retail network (large and spanning most of the US) made it reasonably likely that the disclosures were known by the footwear industry operating within the EU. Especially, when factoring in the importance of the EU market to be aware of commercial trends on the US market.

Sarah Cook, Senior Associate says:

“This case highlights that all disclosures are relevant no matter where in the world they take place and the knock on effect this can have on securing certain intellectual property rights in the future. Brand owners should always avoid sharing and disclosing their designs with third parties until adequate commercial protection is in place.”

If this article prompts any thoughts you may have about IP protection, please get in touch. We can advise on all aspects of IP protection, including strategy and dispute resolution.

Further reading

The meaning of vacant possession – useful guidance from the Court of Appeal

Blog, Legal Updates
Cheraine Williams considers the facts of a recent case but urges tenants not to rely solely on the outcome
Read more Read

Employer's question: the right to appeal a redundancy dismissal

It is common practice to offer the right to appeal against a redundancy dismissal. If you are considering not doing so, tread carefully.
Read more Read

Can I disinherit my children?

"American Pie" hit maker, Don McLean, is said to have disinherited his daughter after her claims of emotional abuse. Is it really that easy?
Read more Read

DMH Stallard Corporate team wins major industry award

Blog, News & PR
Private Equity / Venture Capital Deal of the Year 2021 awarded to deal led by Abigail Owen
Read more Read
  • Brighton Office

    1 Jubilee Street


    East Sussex

    BN1 1GE

  • Gatwick Office

    Griffin House

    135 High Street


    West Sussex

    RH10 1DQ

  • Guildford Office

    Wonersh House

    The Guildway

    Old Portsmouth Road



    GU3 1LR

  • Horsham Office

    Ridgeland House

    15 Carfax


    West Sussex

    RH12 1DY

  • London Office

    6 New Street Square

    New Fetter Lane


    EC4A 3BF

  • Get in touch