Same Mark, Different Outcomes: Lacoste vs Crocodile International Across Jurisdictions

By Aayush Gautam
2026-06-08

Two Crocodiles, Two Courts, Two Outcomes

Trademark law is often presented as a structured system, governed by established principles such as the likelihood of confusion. When applied across jurisdictions, these principles can yield markedly different outcomes — a compelling illustration of this phenomenon.

At the center of the disputes lies a deceptively simple question: Do similar crocodile logos used in the same industry create confusion among consumers? While courts in both India and the Philippines addressed this question in broadly comparable legal frameworks, they arrived at different conclusions.

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Trademark infringement in most jurisdictions is assessed through the lens of the likelihood of confusion. This involves evaluating whether an average consumer, exercising ordinary caution, would mistakenly associate one mark with another.

Courts considered the following factors:

Visual similarity. Phonetic and conceptual resemblance. The nature of goods and consumers. The reputation of the prior mark.

However, the weight assigned to each of these factors varies, and it is this variation that often determines the outcome.

HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi adopted a brand-protective approach, ultimately ruling in favour of Lacoste.

The Court recognized the crocodile device as a distinctive and well-known trademark associated with Lacoste. It placed significant emphasis on the visual similarity between the competing logos and the likelihood that an average consumer in the clothing market would rely on general recollection rather than detailed comparison.

The Court found that the resemblance between the Lacoste and Crocodile logos was sufficient to cause confusion, and that Lacoste's established reputation further strengthened the claim.

The Court, however, declined to uphold a claim for passing off, noting that the evidentiary threshold for establishing goodwill at the relevant time had not been fully satisfied. This distinction reflects a careful separation between statutory infringement and common law remedies.

HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

The Supreme Court of the Philippines adopted a comparative and differentiation approach, ruling in favour of Crocodile International.

Applying both the dominancy test and the holistic test, the Court undertook a detailed examination of the competing marks. It emphasized the presence of distinguishing elements, including differences in the design and posture of the crocodile device, the inclusion of accompanying word marks, and the overall presentation of the logos.

The Court concluded that these differences were sufficient to dispel any likelihood of confusion. It reasoned that consumers would be able to distinguish between the two brands, particularly when the marks were considered in their entirety rather than in isolation.

This approach reflects a greater tolerance for the coexistence of similar marks, provided that they are not deceptively similar in their overall impression.

DIVERGENT OUTCOMES

The contrast between the two decisions is striking. Both courts applied the same underlying principle — likelihood of confusion — and yet reached different conclusions.

The Role of Reputation: The Delhi High Court placed considerable weight on Lacoste's global reputation, effectively lowering the threshold for establishing confusion. The Philippines Supreme Court prioritized the intrinsic differences between the marks, treating reputation as a less decisive factor.

Consumer Perception: The Delhi High Court adopted a consumer-protective stance, recognizing that purchasing decisions in the apparel sector are often based on imperfect recollection. The Philippines Supreme Court assumed a relatively higher degree of consumer attentiveness, allowing for differentiation based on visual and textual distinctions.

Judicial Philosophy: At the broader level, the decisions reflect differing judicial philosophies. The Delhi High Court's approach favours the strong protection of established brands, particularly where there is a risk of dilution or association. The Philippines Supreme Court, on the other hand, demonstrates a preference for maintaining competitive space, permitting similar marks to coexist where confusion is not clearly established.

CONCLUSION

The Lacoste–Crocodile dispute underscores a fundamental reality of trademark law: its application is inherently contextual. While legal principles may be harmonized across jurisdictions, their interpretation remains influenced by local perceptions, evidentiary standards, and policy considerations.

As a result, the same mark may be deemed infringing in one jurisdiction and permissible in another. For businesses operating in global markets, this highlights the importance of adopting a jurisdiction-specific strategy for brand protection.

Ultimately, trademark law is not merely about similarity — it is about how courts perceive similarity in the context of their own legal and commercial environments.