Organisation: Lacoste

Defendant acquitted in counterfeiting case despite far-fetched claims

In a case involving a shipment of counterfeit goods from China, the Stockholm District Court has acquitted the defendant, despite the latter’s implausible claims. The court found that it had not been established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had bought the goods intentionally or through gross negligence. The judgment confirms that the standard of proof in criminal cases can be very high for trademark owners.

11 April 2013

Decision sets the bar for higher level of damages in counterfeiting cases

The District Court of Stockholm has issued its decision in one of the largest and most significant counterfeiting cases in Sweden in recent times. The case involved fake Canada Goose, Lacoste, Ralph Lauren and Lyle & Scott clothes. The court calculated the damages based on a hypothetical licence fee of 20% of the retail price of the goods, which is significantly higher than in previous case law.

25 October 2012

When trademarks drive business: The Lacoste experience

An often-discussed issue in the trademark world is the level of board engagement with the IP function. For some organisations, attaining senior management buy-in can be a struggle, for others – particularly in brand led businesses – management places trademarks at the center of its business strategy. The latter is the case at Lacoste SA, as Michel Lacoste, chairman of the board, told <i>WTR</i>.

06 May 2012

The trailblazing corporate trademark teams revealed in awards shortlist

Almost 1,500 nominations and two months of extensive research later, the shortlist for this year's WTR Industry Awards can now be revealed. The awards recognise the vital work of in-house trademark counsel and identify those teams and individuals that are performing their functions to the highest standards. The winners will be announced next month at an exclusive reception in Washington DC.

19 April 2012

Court clarifies “other harmful influence” under Article 10 of Trademark Law

In a case involving Lacoste's famous crocodile device, the Beijing Number 1 Intermediate People’s Court has clarified that the term “other harmful influence” in Article 10 of the Trademark Law refers only to public order, not to private interests. The court overturned a decision of the TRAB in which the latter had rejected Lacoste’s application to register the mirror image of its crocodile device.

03 February 2012

Unlock unlimited access to all WTR content