The China Law Blawg and Yahoo report on the 40-year trade mark battle that’s been going on between Lacoste and the Singapore company, Crocodile International. Most recently, Lacoste had lost in its attempt to register its mark for cosmetics in China. Crocodile International claims that its mark was drawn by Tan Hiantsin in 1947 and was registered as a trade mark in Singapore in 1951. For its part, Lacoste points to a French registration dating back to 1933. Additionally, Lacoste registered in China in 1980, while Crocodile International waited until 1998. Now Lacoste’s right-facing crocodile is taking on Crocodile International’s left-facing crocodile in trade mark suits across China, the rest of Asia and the Middle East.
The IPKat thinks that there should be room for both marks to co-exist of the market. Crocodiles are a well-known member of the animal kingdom and a common theme and as such should only be entitled to a narrow scope of protection. A similar conclusion has been reached in cases involving the registrability of lions as trade marks.
Singing crocodiles here
Sick crocodiles here
Miserable crocodiles here
Snap up some croc a la carte here
The IPKat thinks that there should be room for both marks to co-exist of the market. Crocodiles are a well-known member of the animal kingdom and a common theme and as such should only be entitled to a narrow scope of protection. A similar conclusion has been reached in cases involving the registrability of lions as trade marks.
Singing crocodiles here
Sick crocodiles here
Miserable crocodiles here
Snap up some croc a la carte here
SNAP! SAYS SINGAPORE COMPANY TO LACOSTE
![SNAP! SAYS SINGAPORE COMPANY TO LACOSTE]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Sunday, December 14, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html