Warning letter from Lacoste due to crocodile logo - trademark infringement?

Who wants a Warning under trademark law by Lacoste through the Grünecker law firm because of a similar crocodile logo should seek legal advice immediately. The claims are often far-reaching - including injunctive relief, information and compensation. A modified cease-and-desist declaration can help to minimize the risk and avoid unnecessary costs.

Warning from Lacoste: When the crocodile snaps

As the trademark owner of the famous crocodile, Lacoste S.A. is keeping a sharp eye out for potential imitators. The French fashion group is consistently taking action against logos that even remotely resemble its own heraldic animal from the point of view of the legal department. This is illustrated by a recent case in which a publisher was warned about a stylized crocodile head - due to an alleged risk of confusion.

The amount in dispute? Proud 400,000 euros. And with it: a high cost risk for those affected.

What is it about?

Lacoste, represented by Grünecker Rechtsanwälte, alleges that its logo infringes the trademark rights to the iconic Lacoste crocodile. Unlike typical plagiarism cases, which focus on product imitations, this case involves a visual brand similaritywhich, in the opinion of Lacoste Likelihood of confusion pursuant to Section 14 (2) No. 2 MarkenG justified.

Whether this is really the case depends on several factors - in particular:

• Similarity of the signs (visual, phonetic, conceptual),
• Similarity of the goods or services,
• Distinctiveness and reputation of the earlier mark.

And this is where it gets interesting: Lacoste is undoubtedly a well-known trademark within the meaning of Section 14 (2) No. 3 MarkenG - but even that does not automatically protect against any kind of similarity. Because: Not every crocodile is automatically Lacoste.

What does Lacoste demand in the warning letter?

The warning letter contains the typical trademark law claims, including:

1. Omission the further use of the logo
2. Deletion of your own brand at DPMA
3. Submission of a cease-and-desist declaration with penalty clause
4. Information on the type and scope of use
5. Compensation for damagescalculated by license analogy, if applicable
6. Reimbursement of warning costs - often including patent attorney fees

Due to the high amount in dispute, the legal fees alone quickly add up to four-digit amounts.

Do I have to sign the cease-and-desist declaration?

No, at least not unchecked. The cease-and-desist declaration sent along is almost always one-sided formulation - in the interest of Lacoste. Who they uncheckedoften goes Non-mandatory obligations and risks high contractual penalties for the smallest infringements.

Therefore:

• ✅ Do not sign,
• ✅ Note deadline,
• ✅ involve a specialized lawyer,
• ✅ Have a modified cease-and-desist declaration drawn up.

Are there any defenses?

Yes - especially for purely graphic brands (such as logos with animal motifs), the assessment of similarity is often difficult. A matter of interpretation. Defense strategies can be:

• Delimitation of the logo (e.g. abstract style, no whole crocodile, completely different color scheme)
• Different sectors or target groups
• No risk of confusion despite a certain similarity
• Design elements not eligible for protection (general motifs such as animals)
• Weakness of the plaintiff's mark in certain product groups

What to do in the event of a warning from Lacoste?

1. Keep calm - Do not make any hasty statements.
2. Adhere to deadlines - Most warnings have short response times.
3. Contact a specialist lawyer for trademark law - Ideally with experience in dealing with well-known brands such as Lacoste.
4. Individual testing - Is there even a trademark infringement? Is the amount in dispute realistic?
5. Submit a modified cease-and-desist declaration - Only if necessary and legally sensible.

Infobox: Typical contents of a trademark warning letter

Claim	Meaning
Omission	Waiver of further use of the trademark against the promise of a contractual penalty
Information	Turnover and sales data for calculating the damage and, if applicable, invoicing
Compensation for damages	Payment on the basis of license analogy or profit skimming
Deletion	Abandonment of your own trademark application at DPMA or EUIPO
Destruction	For product cases: Removal or surrender of articles with the protected mark
Reimbursement of costs	Assumption of attorney's fees and, if applicable, patent attorney's fees

Conclusion: The crocodile has teeth - but not always right

Lacoste is defending its brand - and that is legitimate. But not every similarity automatically leads to a likelihood of confusion under trademark law. Anyone who receives a warning letter should Not to be taken lightlybut also Do not capitulate without examination. A well-founded legal classification is often worthwhile - be it for the Defense, to the Negotiation of an amicable solution or to the strategic brand adaptation.