The Plaintiff's lawyers asserted 'During the trial process, we presented evidence that clearly shows the ownership of the Crocodile brand by our clients.' Meanwhile, the defendant's attorney said "Our clients already have the brand and logo registered since seven years ago.'
The claim seems to be based on fame and bad faith. It is not the first Chillington Crocodile case, as they have already won a similar dispute against another trademark squatter. IP Komodo's knowledge of agricultural tools is not strong, but presumably this is a famous mark in the relevant sector of the public. The problem is that in a constitutional system court decisions have no precedent and courts do sometimes decide differently especially when the mark is not known to the judges.