Crocodile vs. Lacoste: The Final Chapter in a 20-Year Legal Fight
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has finally brought an end to a 23-year-old legal battle between Lacoste (India) Ltd. and Hong Kong based Crocodile International. The court ruled in favour of Lacoste and declared that the use of the iconic “Crocodile” trademark by Crocodile International’s was an infringement of Lacoste India’s rights. As a result, Crocodile International has been prohibited from using the disputed trademark in India.
This ruling finally concludes Lacoste’s two-decade-long battle against its rival Crocodile International, over the use of the similar crocodile logo.
Background Of Crocodile vs Lacoste Dispute
The origins of this dispute trace back decades, when both companies locked in legal struggles over the use of similar logos in various countries. Lacoste claimed that the logo used by Crocodile International has a strong resemblance to its own iconic crocodile symbol, which is protected by copyright and trademark laws.
In India, Lacoste’s crocodile logo is protected under the relevant Copyright Acts, which grants it exclusive rights to reproduce the logo and take legal action against any infringement.
However, Crocodile International countered that Lacoste was breaching a prior agreement made between the two rival companies. This agreement was supposed to allow both parties to coexist peacefully within the Asian markets, and Crocodile International argued that it should apply to India as well.
Court’s Verdict In The Crocodile vs Lacoste Dispute
The Delhi High Court ruled against Crocodile International, banning it from using the disputed logo in India as it closely resembles the one used by Lacoste. Justice Sanjeev Narula found that Crocodile International’s trademark was too similar to Lacoste’s, which could mislead consumers. However, the court did not grant Lacoste’s request to permanently ban Crocodile International from using any other reptilian logos.
The court’s decision means that Crocodile International can no longer produce, sell, or promote any products in India that feature the disputed trademark. Additionally, Crocodile International must account for all profits made from selling products with the infringing logo from August 1998 onward. To oversee this, the court appointed retired judge Amar Nath as a local commissioner who will examine Crocodile International’s financial records to determine the profits earned from the disputed trademark. The company has six weeks to provide all necessary financial documents.
Before the final order, Crocodile International had defended itself by citing a 1983 agreement with Lacoste. This agreement was meant to promote “cooperation and coexistence” and resolve legal conflicts between the two companies in different markets. However, the court found that this agreement did not cover India, as it was not included in the territories mentioned in the agreement.
The court concluded that without a specific clause or amendment that includes India, the 1983 agreement could not be applied to the Indian market. Therefore, Crocodile International’s claim that the agreement allowed them to use the trademark in India was dismissed.
Lacoste has been ordered to pay Rs 3 lakh upfront to cover the local commissioner’s fees, along with any other related costs. The local commissioner will coordinate with the lawyers to set dates for reviewing the evidence. The process is expected to take four months, and a report must be submitted within four weeks after the review is completed.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling brings closure to a trademark dispute that has persisted for over two decades, highlighting the crucial role trademarks play in protecting brand identity in global markets. This case underscores the importance of clearly defined trademark rights and agreements, particularly in an era of increasingly interconnected economies. By upholding Lacoste’s rights, the court has reinforced the idea that trademarks are essential tools for safeguarding a company’s reputation and preventing consumer confusion. The decision also serves as a reminder that legal agreements must be carefully crafted with precise territorial coverage to ensure they are enforceable, thereby protecting the integrity and value of trademarks across different jurisdictions.
To know more about Trademark Registration click here.
