Delhi High Court Upholds French Luxury Sportswear Lacoste’s Injunction Against Crocodile Over Logo Featuring Crocodile

In a major ruling, the Delhi High Court has restrained Hong Kong based Crocodile International from using a crocodile logo that was found to infringe the trademark and copyright of French luxury fashion brand Lacoste. The ruling came after a long running legal dispute between the two companies over the use of reptile imagery in the apparel industry.

A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that Lacoste had successfully established infringement of its protected crocodile trademark as well as the copyright in the artistic work that forms part of its iconic logo. The court therefore barred Crocodile International from using the disputed mark in India.

At the same time, the bench declined to grant relief to Lacoste on its claim of passing off. The court observed that the company had not produced sufficient material to demonstrate the extent of goodwill required to sustain such a claim under trademark law.

The dispute between the two companies dates back more than two decades and represents one of the many legal battles between the brands in different jurisdictions over their respective crocodile themed logos. Lacoste had approached the Delhi High Court in 2001 seeking protection of its trademark and copyright in India. The company sought to restrain Crocodile International and its Indian subsidiary from manufacturing, selling or promoting clothing and related products that carried a crocodile device which it claimed was confusingly similar to its own well known logo.

Lacoste argued that its crocodile emblem, which has been used worldwide for decades, is a distinctive mark associated with the brand’s identity in the fashion market. According to the company, Crocodile International adopted a crocodile device that closely resembled its logo. While Lacoste’s crocodile is depicted facing to the right, the Crocodile International logo features a crocodile facing to the left. Lacoste contended that this was essentially a mirrored version of its own emblem and that such similarity was likely to mislead consumers.

The company further argued that the resemblance between the two devices was not merely visual but conceptual as well. It maintained that the similarity in the overall depiction of a crocodile device used on clothing products would dilute the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the Lacoste mark in the market.

Crocodile International contested the claim and raised several defences. It argued that the two companies had earlier entered into a coexistence arrangement in several Asian markets. According to Crocodile International, the agreement permitted both companies to operate within specified geographical regions. The company asserted that this understanding also extended to India and therefore Lacoste could not seek an injunction preventing its use of the crocodile mark.

The litigation saw a significant development in August 2024 when a single judge of the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Lacoste. In that decision, the court issued a permanent injunction restraining Crocodile International from using the disputed crocodile logo in India. The single judge also directed the company to provide an account of profits earned from the sale of products bearing the impugned mark from August 1998 onwards. This date corresponded with the time when Crocodile International first entered the Indian market.

Following the single judge’s ruling, both sides approached the division bench of the High Court by filing appeals. While Crocodile International challenged the finding of infringement and the grant of an injunction, Lacoste contested the refusal of certain additional reliefs.

In its latest judgment, the division bench upheld the finding that Crocodile International’s mark infringed Lacoste’s trademark and copyright. The court observed that Lacoste had successfully demonstrated that the crocodile device used by the Hong Kong company violated its protected rights in India. As a result, the bench confirmed that Crocodile International cannot continue to use the disputed crocodile logo in the Indian market.

However, the bench did not accept Lacoste’s argument on passing off. The court noted that such a claim requires proof that the plaintiff has built significant goodwill in the relevant market and that the defendant’s conduct is likely to misrepresent its goods as those of the plaintiff. According to the bench, Lacoste had not placed sufficient evidence on record to establish the necessary elements of goodwill for this purpose.

The court also rejected the defence raised by Crocodile International that Lacoste had acquiesced to the use of the mark over time. The bench held that the material on record did not support the argument that Lacoste had tacitly accepted or permitted the continued use of the crocodile emblem.

The ruling marks another chapter in the longstanding global rivalry between the two apparel brands over crocodile themed branding.

Case Title: Lacoste & Anr. v. Crocodile International Pte Ltd. & Anr.

Bench: Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Date of Judgement: March 9, 2026