Lacoste secures victory against Crocodile International in Indian court logo battle

Another legal victory for one of the world's most famous logos: the Lacoste crocodile. The French company uses it to distinguish its famous polo shirts and all its apparel. Lacoste is a sportswear brand founded by tennis player René Lacoste.

Adrien Brody, the face of Lacoste Eyewear, wearing a Lacoste polo shirt Credits: Lacoste media

Crocodile International, a Singapore-based apparel company, has used a crocodile logo for many years, particularly across Asia. Conflicts have arisen in various countries over time because both brands rely on a similar animal symbol.

Court bans Crocodile International's logo use in India

One of these disagreements reached the High Court of Delhi in India. The central issue was simple in form but legally complex: could Crocodile International continue to sell clothing in India using its logo, or was it too similar to Lacoste's famous symbol?

The final ruling was issued on March 9. The court confirmed that Crocodile International's logo was too similar to Lacoste's, reaffirming the ban on its use in India.

As reported by Lux Juris, the High Court of Delhi has issued its final decision. The court largely sided with Lacoste, ruling that Crocodile International cannot use the disputed logo in India.

One of the first disputes between Lacoste and Crocodile International occurred in Japan in 1971. Crocodile International challenged Lacoste's entry into that market. Lacoste defended itself by explaining that the public recognised the brand primarily through the name “Lacoste” and not just the crocodile symbol.

Another disagreement followed in Singapore in 1980. Crocodile International opposed the activities of Lacoste's local partner, demanding they stop using the logo. Lacoste responded by stating that its brand identity depended mainly on the word “Lacoste” and that its animal symbol was not intended to copy that of Crocodile International.

After these repeated clashes, both companies sought to avoid further conflict by reaching an agreement, explain experts at Lux Juris. In June 1983, the two parties signed an agreement allowing each company to continue using its own logo in certain parts of Asia. The agreement listed the places where both companies could operate without interfering with each other; these included Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei. The companies also agreed to cooperate if other businesses attempted to copy their logos.

However, the agreement only applied to the countries specifically listed in the document. India was not among them. This detail later became crucial in the case before the High Court of Delhi.

Crocodile International later referred to a letter written in August 1985. In this letter, the company suggested that the same understanding between the two brands should also apply to other countries, including India, Korea, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

The letter also mentioned that Crocodile International would not oppose certain trademark registration applications filed by Lacoste in those locations.

According to Crocodile International, this letter showed that both companies had informally agreed not to hinder each other in markets beyond those listed in the 1983 agreement. Lacoste did not accept this interpretation, arguing that the letter was merely a unilateral proposal that was never formalised into an agreement.

Over time, both companies established ties to the Indian market. Lacoste secured protection for its logo in India in 1983 and began selling products through a local partner in 1993. During the 1990s, the company invested in advertising to strengthen its presence in the country.

Crocodile International held an older trademark registration in India, dating back to 1952. In 1990, it obtained a further registration for the name “Crocodile” along with a logo. However, Crocodile International began selling apparel in India much later. Advertising started in 1997, and its stores, called Crocodile Galleries, opened in 1998.

As both brands expanded, Crocodile International began using the crocodile symbol without the word “Crocodile” alongside it, making the logo much more similar to Lacoste's. Lacoste then filed a lawsuit at the High Court of Delhi to prohibit Crocodile International from using the trademark.

After comparing the two logos, the court concluded that Crocodile International's crocodile appeared too similar to Lacoste's emblem. It noted similarities in shape, posture and overall appearance.

A Crocodile International polo shirt Credits: Crocodile International ecommerce

Due to these similarities, the judge ruled that customers could confuse the two brands, establishing that Crocodile International could not use the disputed logo in India. The court rejected the argument that the 1983 agreement allowed Crocodile International to operate freely in India. Since India was not listed in the agreement, the document was not applicable. The 1985 letter was also deemed too vague to be a binding agreement.

Delhi court rejects Lacoste's copyright claim

However, Lacoste did not win on all fronts. The court rejected the copyright claim, finding that visual similarities between two realistic depictions of a crocodile did not necessarily indicate plagiarism, given the limitations in representing the animal. The accusation of passing off was also dismissed, as Lacoste had not provided sufficient evidence of its reputation in India at the time of Crocodile International's entry in 1998.

Following the 2024 decision, both companies appealed parts of the ruling. Crocodile International appealed against the finding of logo similarity. Lacoste accepted the decision on trademark infringement but appealed the dismissal of its copyright and passing off claims.

With both parties appealing, the division bench of the High Court of Delhi intervened to reconsider the matter. On March 9, 2026, the final judgment was delivered.

Furthermore, the judges overturned the previous copyright decision. The court stated that a crocodile can be drawn in many different ways and that the trial court had been too hasty in claiming that all drawings of a crocodile necessarily look alike. It therefore concluded that Crocodile International's logo had copied important visual features of the Lacoste crocodile. However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the passing off claim, as Lacoste did not prove a sufficiently established reputation in India in 1998. Crocodile International's objection that Lacoste had waited too long to challenge the logo was also rejected.

The decision by the High Court of Delhi brings the Indian chapter of the long-standing dispute between Lacoste and Crocodile International to a close.

This article was translated to English using an AI tool.

OR CONTINUE WITH

Crocodile

Lacoste