The Crocodile Conundrum: Lacoste V. Crocodile International Explained

Trademark battles seldom last decades, however when they do, they give rise to a complex set of issues to address and adjudicate. One such case led to the recent judgement in Lacoste & Anr. v. Crocodile International Pte Ltd & Anr. CS(Comm)1550/2016, wherein the Delhi High Court ruled upon a two-decade long conflict between so-called 'mirror' logos of a crocodile/ saurian i.e., '' v. ''. Interestingly, the dispute forms part of a larger ongoing global conflict between the two parties in various jurisdictions such as Philippines, China, Singapore, New Zealand, etc. As one may expect, verdicts differ in different countries, however in India, the matter (which includes a myriad of facts, involving co-existence agreements, complexities in prior use, letters of consent, evidentiary lacuna, etc.) has been decided, atleast in the first instance, in favour of Lacoste. The judgement touches upon various important principles, such as anti-dissection, initial interest