Lacoste vs Crocodile International — Delhi HC Ends 20-Year Trademark Battle With Permanent Injunction

Case Background — 20 Years of Dispute

In one of India's longest-running and most closely watched trademark battles, the Delhi High Court in March 2026 brought conclusive finality to a dispute that had wound through Indian courts for approximately two decades. The case — Lacoste S.A.S. vs Crocodile International Pte. Ltd. — pitted the iconic French fashion brand against a Singapore-based company over competing crocodile device marks.

The ruling is a landmark in Indian IP jurisprudence — addressing the intersection of trademark and copyright protection for logos, the mirror-image similarity doctrine, and the remedy of account of profits extending retroactively to 1998.

The Two Crocodiles

• Lacoste S.A.S.The French sportswear giant founded in 1933 by tennis legend René Lacoste — whose iconic crocodile logo, facing right, has been in use globally for over 90 years and is one of the world's most recognised trademark devices
• Crocodile International Pte. Ltd.A Singapore-based company that had been using a crocodile device mark in India — facing in the opposite direction to Lacoste's crocodile, effectively a mirror image — and had obtained trademark registrations in India

Lacoste had been fighting to protect its crocodile mark in India against what it characterised as deliberate imitation — a crocodile device so similar that consumers would confuse the two brands, particularly given that both operated in the same clothing and accessories market.

Delhi High Court's Ruling — March 2026

The Delhi High Court upheld a permanent injunction restraining Crocodile International from using its crocodile device mark in India, finding it infringed both Lacoste's registered trademark and Lacoste's copyright in the original crocodile artistic work.

Key elements of the ruling:

• Permanent injunction upheldCrocodile International permanently restrained from using the crocodile device mark in India in connection with clothing, accessories and related goods
• Trademark infringement establishedThe court found the marks confusingly similar — the mirror-image crocodile would cause confusion among ordinary consumers in the Indian market
• Copyright infringement establishedThe Lacoste crocodile is an original artistic work — Crocodile International's mark was found to reproduce or substantially copy this work in mirror form
• Account of profits orderedCrocodile International ordered to account for all profits made from use of the infringing mark in India since 1998 — a retroactive remedy spanning nearly three decades
• Passing off rejectedThe court rejected Lacoste's passing off claim — finding insufficient evidence of Lacoste's goodwill and reputation specifically in the Indian market at the relevant time

Mirror-Image Logo — The Key Finding

The most significant factual finding in this case is the court's analysis of what it means for a logo to be a "mirror image" of another mark. Crocodile International's crocodile faces left — Lacoste's faces right. On paper, the two appear different. In commerce, the court found, the overall impression created by both marks is that of a similar crocodile device on apparel.

The court applied the core trademark similarity principle — that marks are compared by their overall commercial impression on an ordinary consumer with imperfect recollection, not by technical dissection. An ordinary consumer seeing a crocodile device on a polo shirt would not pause to assess which direction the reptile faces. The impression of both marks — a crocodile on premium clothing — is deceptively similar.

This analysis has broader implications: mirroring, rotating, or slightly modifying a distinctive device mark does not create a sufficiently different mark to avoid infringement. Courts look at the dominant element and overall impression.

Copyright Protection for Logos — Dual Protection

The Lacoste ruling powerfully illustrates the importance of dual IP protection for logos — both trademark and copyright simultaneously.

• Trademark protectionProtects the mark as a brand identifier in commerce — prevents others from using confusingly similar marks on the same or similar goods. Lasts 10 years, renewable indefinitely
• Copyright protectionProtects the artistic design of the logo as an original creative work — prevents copying or substantial reproduction of the artistic elements. Lasts for the author's lifetime plus 60 years
• Why dual protection mattersIf a competitor modifies a mark enough to escape trademark infringement but still copies its artistic elements, copyright provides an additional ground of action — as demonstrated in this case

Every business with a logo should register it as both a trademark (with the Trade Marks Registry) and as a copyright (with the Copyright Office) to enjoy the full benefit of both protections.

Account of Profits — Since 1998

Perhaps the most striking remedy in this case is the court's order directing Crocodile International to account for profits since 1998 — nearly 28 years of trading in India under the infringing mark.

Account of profits is an equitable remedy that requires the infringer to disgorge all profits made from the infringing use — not just post-suit profits, but profits stretching back to when infringement began. In a case involving decades of commercial activity, this represents a potentially enormous liability.

This aspect of the ruling sends a clear message: the longer an infringer operates under a conflicting mark, the greater their ultimate liability when the matter is finally resolved. Delay in enforcement does not reduce the infringer's liability for past profits.

Key Lessons for Brand Owners

• Register logos as both trademark and copyrightDual registration creates overlapping layers of protection — copyright protects the artistic work even when trademark protection has gaps
• Mirror-image similarity is still infringementReversing, flipping or rotating a distinctive device mark does not avoid trademark infringement — courts assess overall commercial impression
• Account of profits is retroactiveIf infringement is eventually proved, the infringer is liable for profits going back to when infringement began — decades of liability can accumulate
• Act early against infringersLacoste's 20-year battle demonstrates the cost of prolonged litigation — early decisive action through well-documented cease and desist notices and swift court applications is far more efficient
• Goodwill evidence must be India-specificThe passing off claim failed because Lacoste could not sufficiently establish India-specific goodwill at the relevant time — maintain and document evidence of Indian market presence, sales and advertising

Why Choose Adv. Nikhil Soni & Co.?

• Personal handling by senior advocateAdv. Nikhil Soni personally handles every IPR matter — clients deal directly with the advocate
• 23+ years, 5000+ trademarksExclusive IP practice since 2001 — trademark, patent, copyright, design and trade secret
• All India coverageAuthorised to appear before all five Trade Marks Offices and IP Courts across India
• End-to-end serviceSearch, filing, objection, enforcement and litigation — complete IP lifecycle management

Frequently Asked Questions