Introduction
It has been reported that the renowned French apparel brand Lacoste has won a long-standing intellectual property lawsuit in a Chinese court. This article examines the background, developments, and impact of this lawsuit.
History of Lacoste and Chinese Companies
Lacoste was founded in 1933 by French tennis player René Lacoste and is known for its crocodile logo. This logo originates from René Lacoste’s nickname, “Le Crocodile.” When expanding into the Asian market, Lacoste noticed that companies in Hong Kong and Singapore were using similar crocodile logos. Initially, there was a mutual understanding between the parties, and the issue did not surface.
Origin of the Issue
The issue intensified with Lacoste’s entry into the mainland Chinese market. Lacoste entered the Chinese market in 1980 and registered its logo. Meanwhile, CROCODILE GARMENTS (CGL) of Hong Kong and CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL (CI) of Singapore initially had no intention of entering mainland China, later expanding under the “Cartelo” brand. Cartelo subsequently came under the umbrella of Chinese company Nangjing E-commerce.
Early Lawsuits and Defeats
About ten years ago, Lacoste sued Cartelo, claiming that Cartelo’s logo infringed on its intellectual property rights. However, both the Beijing Higher People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Court of China dismissed Lacoste’s claims, stating that there was no consumer confusion or misrecognition. Lacoste’s claims against Cartelo’s registered trademarks were also dismissed.
Background and Significance of the Victory
Earlier this year, the Beijing Higher People’s Court acknowledged Lacoste’s claims in a new lawsuit. The court ruled that Lacoste’s crocodile mark was already famous in China by 2006 and that Cartelo clearly intended to ride on Lacoste’s reputation. As a result, Nangjing E-commerce and its associated companies were ordered to pay damages to Lacoste.
Reflection: The Importance of Intellectual Property Protection
Lacoste’s victory is a testament to the importance of intellectual property protection in the Chinese market. When international brands enter emerging markets, it is crucial to protect their trademarks and logos. Especially in markets with counterfeit goods and similar brands, protecting intellectual property is essential to prevent consumer confusion.
Conclusion
Lacoste’s victory in this lawsuit is a significant win for the company, reaffirming its brand status in the Chinese market. It is also important that the Chinese judiciary demonstrated a stance that values intellectual property rights. For international brands to maintain competitiveness in the Chinese market, continuous efforts to protect intellectual property rights will be necessary.
