The Delhi High Court upheld a permanent injunction against Crocodile International for infringing the crocodile trademark and logo copyright of Lacoste, with Justices Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla affirming Lacoste’s rights.
NEW DELHI: A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld a permanent injunction preventing Hong Kong-based Crocodile International from using a crocodile device mark that infringes on the trademark and copyright of the French luxury sportswear brand Lacoste.
Justices Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla ruled that Lacoste had successfully demonstrated infringement of its registered crocodile trademark and the copyright of its logo artwork. Consequently, the Court affirmed the permanent injunction granted in Lacoste’s favor, prohibiting Crocodile from reproducing or using the contested mark.
ALSO READ: Trademark Win for Delhivery: Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief in Trademark & Copyright Case
Details of the full judgment have yet to be released. However, the Court noted that Lacoste did not prove its claim of passing off, stating it had insufficiently established the goodwill necessary to support such a claim. The Court also dismissed Crocodile’s argument that Lacoste had acquiesced in the use of the mark.
The conflict between Lacoste and Crocodile spans over two decades and is part of a larger global trademark dispute involving the two brands concerning crocodile imagery in fashion branding.
Lacoste initiated legal action in the Delhi High Court in 2001 to protect its trademark and copyright rights in India, seeking to prevent Crocodile International and its Indian affiliate from manufacturing, selling, or advertising products bearing an allegedly deceptively similar crocodile device.
According to Lacoste, while its crocodile logo faces right, Crocodile International’s version faces left, making it a mirror image of Lacoste’s mark. The company argued that the visual and conceptual similarities between the logos could confuse consumers and dilute the distinctiveness of its well-known trademark.
Crocodile opposed the lawsuit, claiming that the parties had previously reached a coexistence agreement in several Asian countries that allowed both brands to operate in certain territories. The company argued that this agreement should also apply to India, thereby barring Lacoste from seeking injunctive relief.
In August 2024, a single judge of the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Lacoste, issuing a permanent injunction against Crocodile International from using the disputed crocodile device mark in India. The court also ordered Crocodile to account for profits earned from the sale of goods bearing the crocodile mark since August 1998, when the company began marketing products in India, until it ceased using the mark.
Both parties subsequently challenged various aspects of this ruling, leading to the current decision.
Lacoste was represented by Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall, alongside Advocates Nancy Roy and Prakriti Varshney. Crocodile was represented by Advocates Saif Khan, Prajwal Kushwaha, and Shyal Anand from Anand & Anand.
Case Title: Crocodile v. Lacoste
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE