Crocodile International, founded in Singapore in 1947 by garment entrepreneur Tan Hian Tsin, built its identity around a left-facing crocodile that Tan designed himself and paired with his handwriting. Lacoste, the French sportswear house, used its own right-facing crocodile emblem. Although the animals faced opposite directions, the visual similarity created a long-running intellectual-property conflict as both brands expanded through Asian markets. The dispute became formalized in an agreement dated 1983, allowing the two companies to coexist in certain territories rather than eliminating the overlap entirely. Legal cases and trademark disputes were subsequently filed in China, Myanmar, Japan, and the Philippines. The controversy illustrates how a seemingly simple animal emblem can become a valuable and contested corporate asset: both companies relied on the crocodile as a shorthand for recognizable apparel, brand longevity, and international expansion. The surviving agreement and litigation record point to negotiated coexistence rather than a single definitive victory, with the question of consumer confusion recurring across multiple jurisdictions.
Preparing the daily feature…
AI concept artworkArchive Record · 1980s
The Crocodile Logo War: Crocodile International and Lacoste Clash Across Asian Markets
Crocodile International and Lacoste / 1980s
Crocodile International, founded in Singapore in 1947 by garment entrepreneur Tan Hian Tsin, built its identity around a left-facing crocodile that Tan designed himself and paired with his handwriting. Lacoste, the French sportswear house, used its own right-facing crocodile emblem. Although the animals faced opposite directions, the visual similarity created a long-running intellectual-property conflict as both brands expanded through Asian markets. The dispute became formalized in an agreement dated 1983, allowing the two companies to coexist in certain territories rather than eliminating the overlap entirely. Legal cases and trademark disputes were subsequently filed in China, Myanmar, Japan, and the Philippines. The controversy illustrates how a seemingly simple animal emblem can become a valuable and contested corporate asset: both companies relied on the crocodile as a shorthand for recognizable apparel, brand longevity, and international expansion. The surviving agreement and litigation record point to negotiated coexistence rather than a single definitive victory, with the question of consumer confusion recurring across multiple jurisdictions.
The daily editorial is currently unavailable. There’s still an entire archive to explore.