Levi′s File Lawsuit Against YSL
Saint Laurent become the latest brand targeted by Levi Strauss’s litigation teams. The popular Parisian Maison has been subject to a lawsuit filed by the American denim brand alleging that they have “manufactured, promoted, and sold garments that infringe and dilute Levi’s trademarks,” namely, its pocket tab, “the little red, or white, or blue tab that bears the company’s name and is stitched into the right seam of the back pocket” of its denim.
Levi’s claimed in a California federal court last week that they have developed and used the pocket tab since 1936 in order to provide “sight identification of its products in a crowded denim market.” Now, 82 years on, Levi’s have established multiple trademarks alongside their products and actively enforce legal action on their competitors. Recently docked as “one of the world’s biggest trademark bullies”, Levi’s have already taken out legal action against Barbour, Kenzo and Vineyard Vines.
Although YSL operate in different markets segments with different pricing strategies - factors they will use in their defence - Levi’s have said that “in addition to deriving a profit from the sale of the tabbed pants,” YSL is also “causing incalculable and irreparable damage to [Levi’s] goodwill and diluting the capacity of its tab trademark to differentiate LEVI’S® products from others.” As a result of this claim, Levi’s will be pressing the court to immediately stop YSL from “manufacturing, producing, sourcing, importing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, advertising, or promoting any goods that display any words or symbols that so resemble [Levi]’s tab trademark as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception, on or in connection with any product that is not authorized by or for [Levi’s].”
Although a representative from YSL was not available for comment, a spokesperson for Levi Strauss & Co said, “At Levi Strauss & Co., our trademarks are one of the company’s most valuable assets, and we work actively to protect our trademark rights. As this is an ongoing legal matter, we are not in a position to comment on the specific allegations.”