As per case facts, a protracted legal dispute arose between Lacoste and Crocodile International over the use of a crocodile emblem in India. Lacoste, claiming prior copyright and trademark registrations ... and use, alleged infringement by Crocodile International. The latter contended that mutual agreements from 1983 and 1985 permitted their use of the mark in India. The Single Judge ruled in favor of Lacoste on trademark infringement but against them on copyright infringement and passing off, leading to cross-appeals. The central legal question arose whether the coexistence agreements extended to India, allowing Crocodile International's use, and whether such use constituted trademark or copyright infringement or passing off, considering issues of delay, accounts of profits, and costs. Finally, the High Court determined that the agreements did not cover India, confirming trademark and copyright infringement by Crocodile International. While Lacoste's passing off claim failed due to lack of goodwill proof, the court upheld the order for accounts of profits but reversed the award of costs, acknowledging Lacoste's procedural delays.