Crocodile International, founded in Singapore in 1947 by garment entrepreneur Tan Hian Tsin, built its identity around a left-facing crocodile logo that Tan designed himself and paired with his handwriting. Lacoste, the French fashion house famous for its right-facing crocodile, later became the brand's principal rival in a prolonged intellectual-property dispute. Although the animals face in opposite directions, both companies used a crocodile as a prominent garment trademark, creating the kind of visual overlap that can trigger trademark battles across multiple national markets. The conflict was not confined to a single courtroom: legal cases involving the two brands were filed in China, Myanmar, Japan, and the Philippines. A 1983 agreement allowed the marks to coexist in certain markets, but the continuing disputes illustrate how a seemingly simple animal emblem can become a valuable and contested piece of fashion identity. The affair also reflects the complexity of trademark enforcement in Asian markets, where brands with long commercial histories may operate under negotiated territorial arrangements rather than a single global ruling.
Preparing the daily feature…
AI concept artworkArchive Record · 1980s-2010s
The Crocodile Trademark War: Crocodile International and Lacoste Fight Over a Reptilian Identity
Crocodile International and Lacoste / 1980s-2010s
Crocodile International, founded in Singapore in 1947 by garment entrepreneur Tan Hian Tsin, built its identity around a left-facing crocodile logo that Tan designed himself and paired with his handwriting. Lacoste, the French fashion house famous for its right-facing crocodile, later became the brand's principal rival in a prolonged intellectual-property dispute. Although the animals face in opposite directions, both companies used a crocodile as a prominent garment trademark, creating the kind of visual overlap that can trigger trademark battles across multiple national markets. The conflict was not confined to a single courtroom: legal cases involving the two brands were filed in China, Myanmar, Japan, and the Philippines. A 1983 agreement allowed the marks to coexist in certain markets, but the continuing disputes illustrate how a seemingly simple animal emblem can become a valuable and contested piece of fashion identity. The affair also reflects the complexity of trademark enforcement in Asian markets, where brands with long commercial histories may operate under negotiated territorial arrangements rather than a single global ruling.
The daily editorial is currently unavailable. There’s still an entire archive to explore.
