Delhi High Court upholds permanent injunction favouring Lacoste in trademark battle with Crocodile

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on Monday upheld a permanent injunction restraining Hong Kong-based Crocodile International from using a crocodile device mark found to infringe the trademark and copyright of French luxury sportswear brand Lacoste [Crocodile v. Lacoste]

A Bench of Justices Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla held that Lacoste had successfully established infringement of its registered crocodile trademark as well as copyright in the artwork of the logo.

The Court, therefore, affirmed the permanent injunction granted in favour of Lacoste, restraining Crocodile from reproducing or using the mark.

A copy of the detailed judgment is yet to be made available.

Nevertheless, the Court held that Lacoste had failed to establish the claim of passing off, observing that it had not sufficiently proved the existence of goodwill necessary to sustain such a claim.

It also rejected Crocodile’s contention that Lacoste had acquiesced in the use of the mark.

The dispute between Lacoste and Crocodile dates back more than two decades and forms part of a broader global trademark battle between the two apparel brands over the use of crocodile imagery in fashion branding.

Lacoste instituted the suit before the Delhi High Court in 2001 seeking protection of its trademark and copyright rights in India. The company sought to restrain Crocodile International and its Indian affiliate from manufacturing, selling or advertising apparel and other products bearing a crocodile device that it alleged was deceptively similar to its own.

According to Lacoste, while its crocodile logo faces towards the right, the crocodile used by Crocodile International faces towards the left, making it effectively a mirror image of the Lacoste device. The company argued that the visual and conceptual similarity between the marks was likely to cause confusion among consumers and dilute the distinctiveness of its well-known trademark.

Crocodile, however, opposed the suit by contending that the parties had previously arrived at a coexistence understanding in several Asian jurisdictions, allowing both companies to operate in certain territories. It argued that this understanding extended to India and, therefore, Lacoste was barred from seeking injunctive relief.

In August 2024, a single judge of the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Lacoste and granted a permanent injunction restraining Crocodile International from using the disputed crocodile device mark in India. It also directed Crocodile to render accounts of profits earned from the sale of goods bearing the crocodile mark from August 1998, when the company began marketing products in India, until the cessation of use of the mark.

Both sides subsequently challenged aspects of the ruling, leading to the present decision.

Lacoste was represented by Senior Advocate Chander M Lall with Advocates Nancy Roy and Prakriti Varshney.

Crocodile was represented by Advocates Saif Khan, Prajwal Kushwaha and Shyal Anand from Anand & Anand.