The Delhi High Court has ordered a halt to the sale of products by Bacca Bucci, a homegrown shoe brand that shot to national fame after its appearance on a popular reality show for entrepreneurs: Shark Tank India. In late April 2026, the Court found that the brand's designs bear a striking, unlawful resemblance to those of American footwear giant Skechers.
It is a move that essentially freezes Bacca Bucci's sales of the disputed products without hearing the defendant's side first. The judge's language was unambiguous: the shoe designs in question appeared nearly identical. That phrase alone captures the severity of the Court's finding and signals how strong Skechers' prima facie case appeared to be at this early stage of proceedings.
Court grants interim injunction to halt ‘nearly identical’ designs
Skechers is one of the world's largest footwear companies with a market presence spanning over 170 countries. It approached the Delhi High Court alleging that Bacca Bucci had been manufacturing and selling shoes that closely imitated its registered and well-known designs. The American brand argued that this amounted to design infringement and passing off, legal doctrines that protect brand identity and original creative work.
Justice Gedela, satisfied with the material placed before him, granted the interim injunction ex parte, meaning the order was passed without Bacca Bucci being present or allowed to respond at that stage.
The Courts generally exercise caution before granting such relief, reserving it for cases where the evidence of infringement is compelling and where any delay could cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff.
Beyond halting sales, the Court went considerably further. It directed the appointment of local commissioners, Court-authorised officers who will physically visit the premises of Bacca Bucci and its associated sellers, identify products that allegedly infringe on Skechers' designs, and seize them.
Additionally, Bacca Bucci has been ordered to disclose its supply chains and profits related to the disputed products. This is a powerful discovery mechanism that will allow Skechers to understand the scale of alleged infringement, who manufactured the shoes, who supplied components, which retailers stocked them, and how much money was made in the process.
From rapid scaling to the courtroom
Bacca Bucci's journey is, in many ways, emblematic of the new wave of Indian direct-to-consumer startups. The brand built its identity on affordable, stylish footwear targeting young, urban Indians who wanted trendy shoes without the premium price tag. Its appearance on Shark Tank India gave it a massive boost in visibility.
The irony of the current situation is not lost on observers. The confidence and ambition that took Bacca Bucci to national television and presumably drove the rapid scaling of its product catalogue may have led it into the crosshairs of one of the world's most litigious and design-conscious footwear corporations.
Skechers has a long and well-documented history of aggressively protecting its intellectual property globally. The company has pursued infringement cases in the United States, China, and several other markets, and its Indian legal action fits squarely within this pattern. As Bacca Bucci scaled its operations and its products became more widely distributed, online and offline, it was perhaps inevitable that it would attract scrutiny from global players whose designs it allegedly replicated.
The legal framework: design infringement and passing off
To understand why the Court acted so swiftly and decisively, it helps to appreciate the legal principles at play.
Under India's Designs Act, 2000, the registered owner of a design has the exclusive right to apply that design to the article under a particular class for which it is registered. If another party applies a design that is identical or fraudulently imitative of the registered design, the owner can seek civil remedies, including injunctions and damages. The critical question Courts examine is whether the infringing design is substantially similar to the registered one, and in this case, Hon’ble Justice Gedela found the similarity to be near identical, a finding that goes beyond the statutory threshold.
The passing off claim operates on a slightly different logic. Even where a design is not formally registered, passing off protects against one trader misrepresenting their goods as those of another. Skechers, with its distinctive outsole patterns, colour blocking, and silhouette elements, has established significant brand recognition in India.
The combination of both causes of action, design infringement and passing off, gave Skechers a formidable legal case at the interim stage.
Why ex-parte relief matters
The granting of ex-parte relief, that is, an order passed without the opposing party being heard, is not routine. The Courts are cautious about this because it denies the defendant a chance to present their side before a significant order takes effect. However, where there is urgency, where the balance of convenience favours the plaintiff, and where the prima facie case is strong, the Courts can and do grant such relief.
In intellectual property cases, the logic for ex-parte orders is often compelling: if the infringer is given advance notice of impending legal action, they may rapidly dispose of infringing inventory, shift assets, or destroy evidence. The appointment of local commissioners to conduct raids would lose its effectiveness entirely if Bacca Bucci had forewarning to clear its warehouses.
Justice Gedela's decision to proceed ex-parte suggests he found the combination of a strong prima facie case and the risk of evidence destruction sufficiently persuasive to justify bypassing the normal rule of hearing both sides before granting interim relief.
The broader industry implications
This case arrives at a pivotal moment for India's footwear sector.
India is the world's second-largest producer of footwear and has ambitions to grow its export share. A thriving domestic market, a young consumer base, and the explosion of e-commerce have created conditions for rapid scaling but also for IP disputes.
For years, a segment of the Indian footwear industry operated in a space where design imitation was widespread, and enforcement was limited. Global brands were often reluctant to pursue litigation in India due to the cost, complexity, and slow pace of legal proceedings.
That calculus is changing.
Courts have become more comfortable with granting strong interim relief in IP cases. The legal infrastructure, while still imperfect, is more responsive than it once was.
The Skechers-Bacca Bucci case will be watched closely by other global footwear brands that have long suspected widespread imitation of their designs in the Indian market. A successful outcome for Skechers could encourage more companies to pursue similar legal action.
The era of consequence-free design imitation, particularly of globally recognised brands, is ending. Building a brand on the back of another's creative work is not a sustainable business model.
What comes next?
The immediate next steps will involve the execution of the local commissioner's orders, the physical raids and seizures at Bacca Bucci's premises. Bacca Bucci will then have an opportunity to appear before the Court, contest the interim injunction, and present its own arguments. It may argue, for instance, that its designs are sufficiently distinct, that Skechers' designs are not validly registered, or that there is no likelihood of consumer confusion.
The Court will then decide whether the interim injunction should continue pending a full trial. Full intellectual property trials in India can take years, but the interim relief, if maintained, effectively cripples the defendant's ability to continue selling the disputed products in the meantime.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court's intervention in the Skechers versus Bacca Bucci dispute is a landmark moment, both for the parties involved and the Indian footwear industry at large. It demonstrates the growing willingness of Indian Courts to act swiftly and decisively in protecting intellectual property, and it serves as a critical warning that brand-building shortcuts come with serious legal risks.
For Bacca Bucci, a brand that charmed a nation on Shark Tank India, the road ahead is legally treacherous.
For Skechers, and for the global brands watching from the sidelines, this case marks a new chapter in IP enforcement in one of the world's most dynamic consumer markets and the world’s 4th largest economy.
FICPI's view and involvement
FICPI uniquely combines education and advocacy on topics around patents and trade marks, with a focus on developing the professional excellence of its individual members. FICPI Forums, Congress, committees and meetings are opportunities to gather insights from the international IP attorney community on any issue, whether it be practice-related or topics of patent and trade mark law.
Next steps
Explore the FICPI Study & Work Groups and get more involved with FICPI’s work, including its Working Group on Designs (CET 2).
This article was drafted with the assistance of AI, based on ideas by Jaya Bhatnagar and refined by her to ensure accuracy and relevance. Subsequently, it has been readied for publication through FICPI’s editorial standard procedures, including review by a member of our IP attorney editorial committee, and finalisation from our expert editor.
Image: for illustrative purposes only