In 2025, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) invalidated the design registration for the well-known Crocs clogs for lack of novelty, following a dispute with Gor Factory.
This decision could weaken Crocs’ defense against imitations and make it easier to sell similar products. We explain how and why the company lost it.
Crocs is one of the most recognized brands and models worldwide, and its product is one of the most successful and recognizable pieces of footwear of the last 20 years. In fact, these days, when we want to buy that style of shoe, we tend to say “I want to buy some Crocs,” referring to the characteristic design – a well-known trademark.
As a result of this success, Crocs decided to protect its asset through industrial design rights. It filed design applications around the world with the competent offices in each country or region.
What is an industrial design?
An industrial design protects the aesthetic appearance of a product; applied to the fashion industry, it is the ideal tool for protecting the designs of garments and accessories.
But this case is also a good example of why, in intellectual property, we must always think ahead: act before others do and before things can happen. Intellectual property rights can be challenged and rendered void when the legal requirements are not met. In other words, registering or patenting late, or improperly, has consequences.
Features we thought were unique to Crocs:
- Clog shape
- Ventilation holes
- Heel strap
- Lightweight, antimicrobial material, thanks to the Croslite closed-cell resin that all the shoes are made of. It was invented by the brand and, yes, it is protected by its own patent.
Design documentation filed by Crocs
Here is the design in question, the Crocs classic, characterized by its clog shape with perforations on the upper and a heel strap.
This design was registered with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in 2004 under number 000257001-001. But as we know, registering a design does not guarantee that it will remain valid indefinitely. This is where the legal dispute comes in.
In 2022, the company GOR Factory filed an application for a declaration of invalidity of the Crocs industrial design, on the grounds that it lacked novelty and individual character. It also submitted evidence of a similar design dating back to 2003.
Below is the challenged design:
Graphic representation of the industrial design submitted in the 2004 application for registration.
Criteria for industrial design protection
There are two fundamental criteria for protecting industrial designs
- Novelty: the design must not have been disclosed to the public at the time the application is filed.
- Individual character: the overall impression a design produces on the informed user must differ from the impression produced by existing designs. It should therefore be the result of the designer’s exercise of creative freedom.
Design on which the invalidity request was based.
This is the earlier footwear design, similar to the Crocs design.
A rounded shape, a thick sole, low heels, no wooden parts, and the arrangement of holes on the upper. Simply adding up the shared features does not mean the Crocs design lacks distinctive character; instead, the assessment focuses on the overall impression that both designs produce on the informed user.
And for this type of user, the only significant difference between the Crocs design and the earlier design (in red) is the addition of a strap.
Invalidity of the design registered by Crocs
In February 2025, the EUIPO Board of Appeal confirmed the invalidity of the registered Crocs design, concluding that it did not meet the requirements of novelty and individual character.
In other words, adding the strap is not enough to give the Crocs design individual character in the eyes of the consumer, which led to the design being invalidated. The Board regarded the strap as a mere variation of the same earlier product.
Although Crocs expressed its disagreement with the decision and considered appealing, no final ruling has been reported to date.
Commercial consequences for Crocs
Crocs loses protection for design 000257001-001, which makes it easier for third parties to sell similar designs. In other words, Crocs no longer enjoys the exclusive right to use the design in the European market, nor the right to authorize or prohibit third parties from selling similar footwear.
This does not mean that all Crocs models are invalid, since they all display distinctive features that give them “individual character.”
Other designs registered by Crocs:
- https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/designs/000308903-0002
- https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/designs/000061122-0001
- https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/designs/000733282-0001
Industrial designs are exclusive rights, which means they give their owner the right to prevent others from using them. This is useful for understanding that you do not need to protect a design in order to use it, but you do need to protect it to stop others from using it.
Crocs footwear is not just an industrial design; it is also a registered trademark. So the company has many other rights it can rely on, benefit from, and protect.
Lessons from the Crocs case
The importance of:
- Making sure an industrial design meets the novelty and individual character requirements before registering it.
- Conducting a thorough search before registration to avoid wasted time and even lengthy legal disputes.
- Regularly monitoring new applications for registration to protect your intellectual property rights effectively.
- Understanding that registering a design does not guarantee that it will remain valid indefinitely.
The European Union is not the only territory where Crocs faces intellectual property disputes, either: there are also cases pending in the United States and South America.
