In a significant legal victory, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Lacoste, barring the Hong Kong-based fashion brand Crocodile International from using a logo in India that closely resembled Lacoste’s iconic crocodile emblem. This decision concluded a 23-year-long legal battle, underscoring Lacoste’s commitment to protecting its brand identity in the Indian market. Despite a 1983 agreement between the two companies to coexist peacefully in various global markets, the court found that India was not covered under this arrangement, granting Lacoste exclusive rights to its trademark in the region.

The case highlights the complexities of international trademark disputes, especially between well-established brands with global recognition. Lacoste’s victory emphasizes the importance of consistent brand protection and the legal challenges that can arise when similar logos are used in overlapping markets. This ruling not only reinforces Lacoste’s presence in India but also serves as a reminder of the legal nuances involved in maintaining brand identity across different jurisdictions.

The site Lexology.com added the following details on the case:

In a recent high-profile trademark dispute, Lacoste emerged victorious against Crocodile International Pte Ltd., as the court ruled in favor of Lacoste’s exclusive rights to its iconic crocodile logo. The case revolved around the use of a crocodile device on clothing, with Lacoste accusing Crocodile International of infringing on their trademark and copyright.

Lacoste’s Case: Lacoste, known globally for its crocodile-branded clothing, claimed that Crocodile International’s similar logo caused confusion among consumers. Lacoste argued that they have held exclusive rights to the crocodile device since 1933, with trademarks registered in various countries, including India. They emphasized their long-standing use and investment in the brand in India since 1993, which they believed was being undermined by Crocodile International’s use of a similar symbol.

Crocodile International’s Defense: Crocodile International countered by asserting their independent creation of the “CROCODILE” brand in 1947 in Singapore. They argued that their use of the crocodile device was legitimate and had been internationally recognized for decades. Furthermore, they referenced a 1983 agreement between the two companies, which allowed for peaceful coexistence in certain territories, though Lacoste argued that this agreement did not apply to India.

Court’s Findings: The court sided with Lacoste on several key issues:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction: It was determined that the Indian courts had jurisdiction, given Lacoste’s significant presence and the alleged infringement occurring in India.
2. Ownership of Copyright: The court confirmed Lacoste’s ownership of the copyright for the crocodile device in India, dating back to its registration in 1999.
3. Trademark Infringement: The court ruled that Crocodile International’s use of a similar crocodile device constituted trademark infringement, as it created a risk of consumer confusion.
4. The 1983 Agreement: The court found that this agreement did not extend to India, and Crocodile International was not authorized to use the crocodile device in India without the accompanying “CROCODILE” wordmark.

Outcome: The court issued a permanent injunction, prohibiting Crocodile International from using their crocodile logo in India. Additionally, Crocodile International was ordered to provide access to their financial accounts to assess damages owed to Lacoste.

This ruling reinforces Lacoste’s stronghold over its iconic crocodile logo, particularly within the Indian market, and serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in global trademark disputes.