The Delhi High Court, on August 14, 2024, concluded a 23-year trademark dispute in favor of Lacoste, affirming its exclusive rights over the crocodile logo in India. The case centered on the French apparel company Lacoste's claim that Singapore-based Crocodile International Pte Ltd and its Indian subsidiary had used a standalone crocodile logo that bore a striking resemblance to Lacoste's registered trademark, potentially misleading consumers.
Lacoste argued that it had been using its crocodile logo in India since 1993 and had secured trademark registration under the Indian Trademarks Act. In contrast, Crocodile International cited its usage of a crocodile logo in India since 1997 and referenced a 1983 coexistence agreement permitting concurrent use of their respective logos in select regions, including parts of Asia. However, the court ruled that this agreement did not extend to India.
The court highlighted the deceptive similarity between the two crocodile logos, stating that the standalone crocodile design used by Crocodile International could confuse consumers due to its resemblance to Lacoste's emblem. It emphasized that Lacoste’s registered logo, which predates Crocodile International’s use, provided it with exclusive statutory rights in India.
Key Judgments:
A permanent injunction was issued restraining Crocodile International from manufacturing, advertising, or selling products with the disputed standalone crocodile logo.
Crocodile International was ordered to account for profits derived from sales using the impugned logo and submit detailed statements of accounts within six weeks.
The court reinforced the territorial principle of trademark law, dismissing the applicability of the coexistence agreement in Indian territory.
This ruling underscores the importance of protecting well-established trademarks and highlights the strict territorial nature of intellectual property rights. It serves as a precedent for addressing trademark disputes involving global brands operating in overlapping markets.
Case Title: Lacoste & Anr. vs. Crocodile International Pte Ltd. & Anr.
Comments