Crocodile International Pte Ltd v Lacoste

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2014-485-9300 [2015] NZHC 2432

UNDER

the Trade Marks Act 2002

IN THE MATTER

of Trade Mark Application No 837027 in
Class 25

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks dated 23 June 2014

BETWEEN

CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD

Appellant

AND

LACOSTE Respondent

CIV-2014-485-9302

UNDER  the Trade Marks Act 2002

IN THE MATTER             of an appeal from the decision of the

Commissioner of Trade Marks dated 27

June 2014

IN THE MATTER             of New Zealand Trade Mark No 837027

BETWEEN  LACOSTE Appellant

ANDCROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD

Respondent

Hearing:	18 February 2015
Counsel:	G J Miles QC, A M Wallis and T A Huthwaite for Appellant/Respondent G Arthur for Respondent/Appellant
Judgment:	6 October 2015

CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD v LACOSTE [2015] NZHC 2432 [6 October 2015]

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................................. [1] Background............................................................................................................ [12] The challenged decision – an overview ............................................................... [39] The Appeal – an overview .................................................................................... [42] Lacoste ................................................................................................................ [42] Crocodile International...................................................................................... [44] Central issues ..................................................................................................... [46] Copyright, registered designs and trade marks – a brief overview.................. [52] Copyright ............................................................................................................ [52] Registered designs .............................................................................................. [57] Registered trade marks....................................................................................... [62]

Issue one: Does copyright in the Crocodile Logo exist in New Zealand –

was the Crocodile Logo when made capable of registration as a design? ....... [69]

The Assistant Commissioner’s decision ............................................................ [69] Appeal ................................................................................................................. [77] Crocodile International ....................................................................................... [77] Lacoste ................................................................................................................ [80] Analysis............................................................................................................... [82] Result: Issue one ................................................................................................ [99]

Issue two: If copyright did exist, would use by Lacoste of the Crocodile

Logo in New Zealand infringe Dr Tan’s copyright? ........................................ [100]

The Assistant Commissioner’s decision .......................................................... [100] Originality......................................................................................................... [102] Use contrary to law as infringement ............................................................... [112] Analysis............................................................................................................. [116] Result: Issue two .............................................................................................. [124] Issue three: Use and intention to use ................................................................. [125] The Assistant Commissioner’s decision .......................................................... [125] Appeal ............................................................................................................... [129] Lacoste .............................................................................................................. [129] Crocodile International ..................................................................................... [131] Analysis............................................................................................................. [132] Issues four and five: ownership and bad faith.................................................. [141] Result ................................................................................................................... [146] Costs ..................................................................................................................... [147]

Introduction

[1]      These proceedings are the continuation of a long-running dispute relating to the ownership and use of two, similar, trade marks:

(a)

(the Lacoste Logo); and

(b)

(the Crocodile Logo).

[2]      Lacoste, a French corporation, owns and trades under the Lacoste Logo, the word mark CROCODILE and related marks in New Zealand and many parts of the world.  Lacoste first registered the Lacoste Logo as a trade mark in New Zealand in August 1969 (NZ No. 91098).

[3]     Crocodile International PTE Limited, a Singapore company (Crocodile International), owns and trades under the Crocodile Logo, and related marks in Singapore  and  elsewhere  in  Asia.     Crocodile  International  does  not  trade  in New Zealand.

[4]      Crocodile Garments Ltd, a Hong Kong company whose links with Crocodile International are explained below (Crocodile Garments), registered the Crocodile Logo as a trade mark in New Zealand in December 1961 (NZ No. 70068).

[5]      In June 2004 Lacoste…