Lacoste wins 23-year legal battle over trademark rights in India

The Delhi High Court has brought a 23-year legal dispute between Lacoste (India) Ltd. and Hong Kong-based Crocodile International to a close, ruling in favour of Lacoste. The court has prohibited Crocodile International from using the Crocodile trademark in India, concluding that the company’s use of the trademark closely mimicked Lacoste’s iconic logo, infringing on its trademark rights.

Justice Sanjeev Narula, who presided over the case, determined that Crocodile International’s logo was deceptively similar to Lacoste’s, leading to the ban on the manufacture, sale, and advertising of any products bearing the disputed trademark.

The court has also mandated that Crocodile International account for all profits generated from the use of the infringing trademark, dating back to August 1998, when the legal conflict first arose.

To enforce the court’s orders, retired judge Amar Nath has been appointed as a local commissioner. His responsibility will be to carefully examine Crocodile International’s financial records to calculate the profits earned from the contested trademark.

Crocodile International has been given six weeks to provide its financial documents and any other pertinent information for this review.

Lacoste has been instructed to pay an advance fee of Rs 3 lakh to cover the local commissioner’s costs, along with any additional expenses that may be incurred during the review process. The local commissioner will coordinate with the legal representatives of both parties to schedule the review of the evidence.

The entire process is expected to be completed within four months, and a detailed report on the findings is to be submitted within four weeks after the review’s conclusion.

This case highlights a lengthy history of legal battles over similar logos in various regions. Lacoste maintained that Crocodile International’s logo bore a striking resemblance to its own, which has been legally protected by trademark and copyright registrations in India.

Crocodile International, however, argued that Lacoste violated a prior agreement allowing both companies to coexist in the Asian market and believed that this agreement should extend to India. Despite these claims, the court ultimately ruled in Lacoste’s favour, effectively ending the decades-long dispute.