Delhi HC Bars Bacca Bucci from Selling Skechers Lookalike Shoes: Trade Dress Law in India

The Delhi High Court has restrained the Shark Tank-featured Indian footwear brand Bacca Bucci from manufacturing, selling, or advertising shoes that allegedly copy the design of American brand Skechers' popular Go Walk range. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted an ex parte interim injunction in favour of Skechers, finding the two designs 'nearly identical' and capable of misleading consumers. The order highlights the growing importance of trade dress protection in India, a legal concept that extends trademark law beyond logos and brand names to cover the overall visual appearance of a product.

What Is Trade Dress and Why Does It Matter

Trade dress refers to the overall commercial image or visual impression of a product that indicates its source to consumers. Unlike a traditional trademark that protects a word, logo, or symbol, trade dress encompasses the total look and feel, including shape, colour combinations, textures, size, and configuration. In the footwear industry, this includes sole patterns, upper design elements, stitching arrangements, and the overall silhouette of a shoe. Indian courts have increasingly recognised trade dress as protectable under Section 2(1)(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which defines a trademark broadly enough to include the shape of goods and their packaging. The Supreme Court in the Colgate Palmolive case acknowledged that trade dress can acquire distinctiveness through prolonged use and consumer association, making it eligible for protection against confusingly similar imitations.

The Skechers vs Bacca Bucci Dispute

Skechers South Asia Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit before the Delhi High Court alleging that Bacca Bucci had copied distinctive design elements of the Skechers Go Walk 5 range. The specific features alleged to have been replicated include horseshoe shapes on the sole, segmented patterns across the midsole, asymmetrical blocks on the outsole, and the overall structural configuration of the upper. Skechers argued that these design elements, developed over years of research and investment, had acquired secondary meaning among Indian consumers, who associate these visual cues with the Skechers brand. Bacca Bucci, which gained national prominence after appearing on the television show Shark Tank India, was accused of leveraging its visibility to sell footwear that trades on Skechers' established design reputation. The court, upon comparing the two products, observed that the similarities went beyond mere coincidence and appeared to be a deliberate adoption of Skechers' trade dress.

The Court's Order and Remedies Granted

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela's order was comprehensive in scope. The court restrained Bacca Bucci from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in the disputed shoes in any manner. The company was directed to recall existing stock of the infringing products from the market. Court commissioners were appointed with authority to inspect Bacca Bucci's offices and warehouses in Delhi, Gurugram, and Noida, seize allegedly infringing products, review sales records, and collect evidence. Bacca Bucci was further directed to disclose complete details of its supply chain, including manufacturers, distributors, and retailers involved in the sale of the disputed footwear, along with revenue and profit figures linked to the contested products. The breadth of these remedies reflects the court's assessment that the prima facie case strongly favoured Skechers and that allowing continued sale would cause irreparable harm to the brand's goodwill.

Legal Test for Trade Dress Infringement in India

Indian courts apply a multi-factor test when evaluating trade dress infringement claims. The plaintiff must establish that their trade dress is distinctive, either inherently or through acquired distinctiveness via secondary meaning. The court then examines whether the defendant's product creates a likelihood of confusion among consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. Factors considered include the overall visual impression rather than individual elements in isolation, the degree of similarity in the total commercial impression, the channels of trade and target consumer base, and evidence of actual consumer confusion if available. Courts also consider whether functional elements have been excluded from the comparison, since trade dress protection does not extend to features that are essential to the product's use or purpose, or that affect its cost or quality. The Delhi High Court in the Bacca Bucci case applied this framework to conclude that the cumulative similarity of design elements crossed the threshold from permissible inspiration to actionable copying.

Implications for D2C Brands and Startups

This case carries significant implications for India's rapidly growing direct-to-consumer brand ecosystem. Many Indian D2C brands, particularly in fashion and footwear, position themselves as affordable alternatives to international brands. While competing on price is legitimate, this judgment makes clear that the line between offering an alternative product and copying a competitor's trade dress is legally enforceable. Startups that gain visibility through platforms like Shark Tank must be especially cautious, as their heightened public profile can attract scrutiny from established brands with deep IP portfolios. The practical takeaway is that product design teams should conduct clearance searches not only for trademarks but also for trade dress before launching products that bear visual similarities to established competitors. Companies should maintain documentation of their independent design process as evidence of original creation, and seek legal advice before bringing to market any product that a reasonable consumer might confuse with an existing branded product.