Lacoste Versus Crocodile International: Delhi High Court Decides Which Croc Is Authentic

The Delhi High Court recently ended a 23-year dispute between Lacoste (India) Ltd. and Crocodile International from Hong Kong. The court decided that Crocodile International’s use of the Crocodile trademark violated Lacoste’s trademark rights and banned the company from using it.

Justice Sanjeev Narula found that the Hong Kong-based company’s trademark was misleadingly similar to Lacoste's.

This means they cannot manufacture, sell, advertise, or otherwise use the trademark that was found to infringe on Lacoste’s rights.

Additionally, Crocodile International is required to account for all the profits they made from selling products with the disputed trademark from August 1998 until they stopped using it. To oversee this process, the court has appointed retired judge Amar Nath as a local commissioner.

He will review Crocodile International’s financial records to determine the profits earned from the disputed trademark. Within six weeks, Crocodile International must provide their financial documents and any other necessary information.

Lacoste is responsible for paying Rs 3 lakh in advance to cover the local commissioner’s fee, along with any additional expenses incurred. The local commissioner will arrange the dates for reviewing the evidence in consultation with the parties' lawyers.

The entire process is expected to be completed within four months, and the local commissioner must submit a report within four weeks after finishing the review of evidence.

The dispute was rooted in a longstanding history of legal conflicts over the use of similar emblems in various jurisdictions. Lacoste asserted that the logo used by Crocodile International closely resembles their own trademark, which both copyright and trademark registrations have protected.

In India, Lacoste has secured the copyright for their crocodile logo under the Copyright Acts of 1957 and 1994, granting them exclusive rights to reproduce the logo and seek legal remedies for any infringement.

On the other hand, Crocodile International argued that Lacoste is violating a previous agreement that allowed both parties to coexist peacefully in the Asian market, and they believed this agreement should extend to India as well.