
Delhi High Court Affirms Ruling in Favor of Lacoste in Longstanding Trademark Dispute with Crocodile
Trademark Dispute Update: Lacoste Prevails Over Crocodile International
On Monday, the Delhi High Court issued a ruling in a long-standing trademark conflict between Lacoste, a French luxury brand, and Crocodile International, a Hong Kong-based clothing manufacturer. The court upheld a previous single judge bench order that barred Crocodile International from using a crocodile logo found to infringe on Lacoste's trademark and copyright.
The division bench comprising Justices Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla ruled that Lacoste effectively proved infringement regarding its protected crocodile emblem and the specific creative copyright of its signature logo design. However, the court noted that Lacoste failed to meet the requirements for a passing-off claim, citing a lack of adequate evidence of goodwill needed to support this argument.
Key Developments
Read also: Kumar Mangalam Birla to Address Concluding Function of RSS Training Camp
- The court dismissed Crocodile's defence that Lacoste had tacitly accepted or acquiesced to the use of the disputed mark over time.
- Lacoste initiated legal proceedings in 2001 to safeguard its trademark and copyright interests within India.
- The lawsuit aimed to prohibit Crocodile International and its Indian subsidiary from producing, marketing, or promoting clothing and merchandise featuring a crocodile emblem that was confusingly similar to Lacoste's own.
- Crocodile International contested the legal action, arguing that the two parties had previously reached a coexistence agreement in various Asian markets.
Previous Rulings
- In August 2024, a single judge of the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Lacoste, issuing a permanent injunction barring Crocodile International from using the contested crocodile logo in India.
- The court ordered Crocodile International to provide an account of its profits from the sale of any products bearing the infringing mark starting from August 1998 – the period when the firm first entered the Indian market – until the mark's use was discontinued.
Investor Takeaway
This ruling has a low impact on the market and is primarily a legal matter.
More in General

Kumar Mangalam Birla to Address Concluding Function of RSS Training Camp

The Cost of Healthcare: Why Predictability in Medical Inflation is Crucial for Health Insurance

Former Google Executive Warns AI Risks Stem from Human Misuse, Not Technological Limitations
