The Hague District Court ruled in a lawsuit between Lacoste and Hema, which concerns a children’s underwear with a crocodile motif.
According to Lacoste, Hema infringed the rights over their registered trademarks, which above all is well-known amongst the consumers.
The Court, however, disagreed with Lacoste stating that there was no infringement in the case at hand because the use of a repetitive crocodile pattern was perceived as a decoration, not as a source of origin. The practice of using animal depictions for children’s clothing is widespread.
Lacoste claimed that confusion could be created due to the fact that their trademarks have had a reputation on the market for many years. In addition, a survey was been provided, in which many respondents stated that they connect crocodile depictions with the Lacoste’s trademark.
The Court dismissed this evidence because the questions in the survey were leading, making respondents think about trademarks. On top of that, the relevant public wasn’t defined correctly.
According to Lacoste, some of the clothes contained only one depiction of crocodile which made even easier for the consumers to make a connection with their trademark.
The Court disagreed for this too, concluding that this cloth had been selling in a package with others and only in the Hema’s stores so the relevant consumers would not be confused neither be able to connect it with the Lacoste’s trademarks.