Delhi High Court Upholds Permanent Injunction in Lacoste vs Crocodile Trademark Dispute

The Delhi High Court judgement in Crocodile v. Lacoste has reaffirmed trademark protection for the French fashion brand Lacoste in its long-running dispute with Hong Kong-based Crocodile International.

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently upheld a permanent injunction restraining Crocodile International from using a crocodile device mark that was found to infringe Lacoste’s registered trademark and copyright.

The Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla concluded that Lacoste had successfully established infringement of both its registered trademark and the artistic copyright in its iconic crocodile logo. Consequently, the Court confirmed the permanent injunction earlier granted in favour of Lacoste.

The dispute between the two global apparel brands has existed for more than two decades and forms part of a wider international conflict concerning the use of crocodile imagery in fashion branding.

Lacoste originally approached the Delhi High Court in 2001 seeking protection of its trademark and copyright in India. The company alleged that Crocodile International and its Indian affiliate were manufacturing, selling, and advertising apparel and other products bearing a crocodile device mark that was deceptively similar to its own logo.

According to Lacoste, its well-known crocodile symbol faces towards the right, whereas Crocodile International’s mark depicts a crocodile facing towards the left. The brand argued that the similarity between the two marks created a mirror-image effect that could mislead consumers and dilute the distinctiveness of Lacoste’s trademark.

In August 2024, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Lacoste and issued a permanent injunction restraining Crocodile International from using the disputed mark in India. The Court also directed Crocodile to provide accounts of profits generated from products sold with the crocodile device from August 1998 until it ceased using the mark.

Both parties challenged parts of that ruling before a Division Bench, which led to the present judgement.

While the Division Bench upheld the finding of trademark and copyright infringement and confirmed the permanent injunction, it rejected Lacoste’s claim of passing off. The Court held that Lacoste had not adequately established the necessary goodwill required to sustain a passing off claim in the circumstances.

The Court also dismissed Crocodile International’s argument that Lacoste had acquiesced to the use of the mark. Crocodile had claimed that both companies had earlier reached coexistence arrangements in several Asian jurisdictions, which allegedly allowed both brands to operate in certain territories.

However, the Court did not accept this defence and maintained that Lacoste was entitled to protection of its trademark rights in India.

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

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

The detailed judgement is yet to be made available.