Levi's takes on Japanese Denim Resellers and Manufacturers

[thelion1856]

this basicaly tells us that levis does not care about quality. they care only of quantity and profits. i dont see them using shuttle loom to make jeans. if levis was making jeans the same way they did in the 50's then maybe i could understand this lawsuit better.

[Westbrook]

this basicaly tells us that levis does not care about quality.

This could not be further from the truth. The problem is that you, me and probably everyone else who reads SuFu have a different understanding of the word "quality" as it pertains to denim. There are millions of people quite satisfied with the perceived quality of their levis, gap and abercrombie jeans. Levis is just protecting their brand, which they have every right, precendent, and obligation to their stockholders to do.

By keeping other people from using their trademarks, they're in fact protecting the perceived quality of their product. If they allowed everyone to copy their product, they'd be setting themselves up for failure in the future.

Without a better understanding of the scope of this "lawsuit," its hard to make a judgement on the maliciousness of their timing with regards to the sales and production cycle of these companies, but business is business. While it sucks for denim fetishists in a way, its not the end of high-brow denim.

[Tarmac]

WORD x WORD

[Neilfuji]

VERY GOOD POINT......

What is going on with that...anyone????

[LeicaLad]

Why is there absolutely no coverage of this in the business press? Google on the subject and all you find... is us.

Anybody find any news or legal coverage of this action? :confused:

[Tarmac]

Why is there absolutely no coverage of this in the business press? Google on the subject and all you find... is us.

Anybody find any news or legal coverage of this action? :confused:

From the average consumer's viewpoint it's like stopping a shipment of fake handbags. Probably not newsworthy.

[Superstar]

Why is there absolutely no coverage of this in the business press? Google on the subject and all you find... is us.

Anybody find any news or legal coverage of this action? :confused:

people couldnt care less...

"japanese denim, so what?"

[tweeds]

From the average consumer's viewpoint it's like stopping a shipment of fake handbags. Probably not newsworthy.

the self edge X superfuture party was big enough news...

[Double D]

the self edge X superfuture party was big enough news...

If by 'news' you mean 'lifestyle article in local press'.

[airfrogusmc]

I know this isn't going to be popular here and understand that I am not a big supporter of large corporations. If you read some of my posts I'm the opposite.

Having said all that I have seen in the past decade a very disturbing trend. Because I am in a creative field and my livelihood depends on people respecting my copyright I am sensitive to these issues.As should be all creatives. The trend I'm seeing and its evident in the posts here is that a large portion of society thinks its alright to infringe on copyright and trademarks as long as it (society) is getting what it wants (very narcissistic). The napster thing is an example of copyright infringement and this trademark thing is another. The real question is why did these companies that are infringing on the trademark go a head when its clear that its an infringement? I know its the evil Levis but if a large corporation can't protect its image (copyrighted materials or a trademarked company identity) how can a little guy protect his in this global market? Just because you might not like what the company is doing doesn't give another company the right to use their trademark. Thats the bottom line.

[thelion1856]

I know this isn't going to be popular here and understand that I am not a big supporter of large corporations. If you read some of my posts I'm the opposite.

Having said all that I have seen in the past decade a very disturbing trend. Because I am in a creative field and my livelihood depends on people respecting my copyright I am sensitive to these issues.As should be all creatives. The trend I'm seeing and its evident in the posts here is that a large portion of society thinks its alright to infringe on copyright and trademarks as long as it (society) is getting what it wants (very narcissistic). The napster thing is an example of copyright infringement and this trademark thing is another. The real question is why did these companies that are infringing on the trademark go a head when its clear that its an infringement? I know its the evil Levis but if a large corporation can't protect its image (copyrighted materials or a trademarked company identity) how can a little guy protect his in this global market? Just because you might not like what the company is doing doesn't give another company the right to use their trademark. Thats the bottom line.

these japanese companies never sell their jeans as "levis". they never once say that their jeans are levis.

[airfrogusmc]

these japanese companies never sell their jeans as "levis". they never once say that their jeans are levis.

But Levis have a trademark on pocket arcuate and the red tag on the pocket. Coke has a trademark on bottle shape. If you have a business one of the first things you should do if your developing an identity is check on trademarks to see if you are not stepping on toes.

[LeicaLad]

As cooler heads begin to prevail, more will see that airfrogusmc is completely correct. The homage thing has accomplished far more than its originators ever imagined, but it is also really played out. What began as a small cult thing known only in small circles in Japan grew to a point where ALL the mainline denim companies have been scrambling to produce some attempt at premium products. It's time for them to declare success and move on to their own creative best efforts.

While the initial products, like Sugar Cane, were true homage items, many of the best in more recent times have simply lacked imagination to not copy the trademarked details. IF we believe the commonly stated point that it really IS about the denim, first, and the cuts, second, then the trademark touches are of no significance. We should almost thank Levi’s for finally getting around to making noise (well, almost!).

As Kiya, and a few others have pointed out, other than the immediate and short-term cash-flow headaches this action has created, most of the makers should be stimulated to be a bit more creative. We may, in fact, see new jeans with touches that are even better than anything copied from Levi’s or other traditional denim lines.

Trademarks are designs and the creative ownership should be respected.

That said, I’m still scoring a couple (now black market) pair from the bad-boy makers just for the outlaw sense of fun.

[zelah]

http://caliroots.com/data/product/images/77142007044153955308163_L.jpg

shhhhhhhhh

[synthi]

The trend I'm seeing and its evident in the posts here is that a large portion of society thinks its alright to infringe on copyright and trademarks as long as it (society) is getting what it wants (very narcissistic). The napster thing is an example of copyright infringement and this trademark thing is another.

Patents, copyright and trademarks are things that in this context allow businesses to protect themselves from other businesses. As in often the case, the consumer cares diddly squat about all that hoopla; they just want (very simplistically speaking) the best service or product for the best quality at the best price. So (imo) you cannot really blame society's disregard for these kinds of things in many instances.

The real question is why did these companies that are infringing on the trademark go a head when its clear that its an infringement? I know its the evil Levis but if a large corporation can't protect its image (copyrighted materials or a trademarked company identity) how can a little guy protect his in this global market? Just because you might not like what the company is doing doesn't give another company the right to use their trademark. Thats the bottom line.

Many of us forget that SDA, Denime and Evis started because they couldn't find jeans on the market at that time (late 70's) that came anywhere close to the vintage Levi's their owners paid through the nose to acquire. What they came up with was a homage to the jeans they loved so dearly. To answer your question of why their versions so closely resembled Levi's with apparent little regard for any possible legal implications will have to wait till we find out unoquivically whether Levi's had / have the contested items as registered trademarks in Japan.

Even if they do, the fact that in many cases the arcuates and leather patches are inspired rather than clones may make things less clear cut. In the perfume industry for example, apparently just a 1% difference in ingredients constitutes a 'new' fragrance.

[Geowu]

airfrogusmc - you talk about principles and trademarks in general.

maybe what is in question is not the validity of these principles and of trademarks, but whether what Levi's has is (or should be) a trademark or not.

whether what the companies did is (or should be) an infringement or not.

of course the law said so, but law allows room for mistakes

[airfrogusmc]

airfrogusmc - you talk about principles and trademarks in general.

maybe what is in question is not the validity of these principles and of trademarks, but whether what Levi's has is (or should be) a trademark or not.

whether what the companies did is (or should be) an infringement or not.

of course the law said so, but law allows room for mistakes

Common sense show to me that there was a problem because you can't copy some else's product without their permission. Lees and Wrangler have managed to work within the frame for a very long time.

[mcflip]

I'm not sure if anyone else made this analogy. I thought the one about the hood ornament/pocket tab was spot-on tho.

I look at a lot of these romantic repros like bands covering other bands' songs, or the whole sampling debate. You're paying homage, and usually taking an idea and putting your own twist on it. When you hear a cover, unless you're an uneducated clod, you know that the basic framework and melody of the song was there before.

All of these jeans have different arcurates, tab designs, etc. that anyone who does more than glance at your jeans would realize. There are worlds of difference between a pair of Samurai's and Thai Fakes. The way they went about things just seems so spiteful and designed to destroy a lot of these companies and stores that sell them. Has Levis ever contacted any of these makers in the past about changing their designs? I know that some have made the same models for years. I have a little less sympathy for the little guys if Levis has, but it doesn't change the fact that this lawsuit is designed to hurt/kill a lot of these companies and the stores that carry them.

Levis being a bloated, out of touch corporation has already been discussed to death, so there's no need to spout off more about that.

I'm mainly curious about how Levis or anyone is going to set guidelines about what constitutes a similar arcurate, or patch design. There are so many companies that ape the arcurate closer to Sammies, etc. My girlfriend's Meltin' Pot jeans ape the arcurate so much closer than my SD103s. As far as the patch is concerned, what if someone puts a pair of jeans being stretched between 2 trees? Obviously the trees aren't moving. Would Levis still sue? (well, probably.. but it would technically not be infringing on their trademark as they defined it) The way I understand the lawsuit, it just comes off too vague in a few ways that Levis can cherrypick and go after whoever makes the nicest 501 styled jeans. What's going to be next? You can't have symmetrical patch designs with a banner and a pair of jeans on them? Pockets can't be pentagon-shaped?

I continually have checked on LVC47s for the past few seasons, but they've sucked. After this I don't feel any desire whatsoever to even consider them for purchace anymore. Whether that's wrong or right, I just don't want to support companies that act like this.

[Louche]

Most of you who are in the business obviously know this already, but Levi's copy cuts, washes and motifs from other brands, so when they take legal action like this I get a bit irritated. It's hypocrisy at its finest.

I have first hand knowledge from employees who worked at the Levi Strauss Europe, Middle East and Africa branch, and are now working at Levi Strauss Europe (after the restructuring), who have told me that they copy other brands. This has, as far as I have been told, mostly been on cuts for clothes as they have struggled to make clothing which suits the european market. But as the clumsy Levi's employee who visited this thread pointed out, they also copy jeans styles. Funny thing that he seemed to disappear shortly after making that post. Not really the most strategic thing to post...

This entire thing has potential PR disaster written all over it:

- bullying smaller brands who "pay tribute" to Levi's

- Levi's being widely looked upon as having inferior quality

- Levi's themselves infringing on copyright laws

And considering how hooked up people are at this forum, you guys at Levi's must be shaking in your pants!

I was actually at BiG on tuesday (and the days before ;-), when the news pretty much hit, and my heart goes out to you guys. This must be pretty devastating considering that you must have had incredibly small margins selling these jeans at the low prices you were selling them at.

[airfrogusmc]

I'm not sure if anyone else made this analogy. I thought the one about the hood ornament/pocket tab was spot-on tho.

I look at a lot of these romantic repros like bands covering other bands' songs, or the whole sampling debate. You're paying homage, and usually taking an idea and putting your own twist on it. When you hear a cover, unless you're an uneducated clod, you know that the basic framework and melody of the song was there before.

And there have been huge lawsuits of when a band records a song and doesn't pay royalties and list the writer of the song. Paying homage is one thing but if they were truly doing that you would have contacted Levis and gotten their blessings what ever that would have taken. Paying homage doesn't give you the right to just do what you want and say oh I was paying respect especailly when it come to profit.

I continually have checked on LVC47s for the past few seasons, but they've sucked. After this I don't feel any desire whatsoever to even consider them for purchace anymore. Whether that's wrong or right, I just don't want to support companies that act like this.

I agree that the pattern 47 is very trim compared to originals but I can tell you I've seen the 55 LVCs side by side with an original raw pair both the same size and the LVC 55 is about as good of a repro as you can get if comparing to origianls in weight of the denim, texture and color and the cut was right on. But non of this matters that X is making a better version than Y. What matters is does X have the trademarked arcuate and they do and can Y make a jean that doesn't break the law and the answer to that would be yes then you have to follow the law. As much as I think Levis sucks at allot of stuff they're right in this case.

[airfrogusmc]

Most of you who are in the business obviously know this already, but Levi's copy cuts, washes and motifs from other brands, so when they take legal action like this I get a bit irritated. It's hypocrisy at its finest.

I have first hand knowledge from employees who worked at the Levi Strauss Europe, Middle East and Africa branch, and are now working at Levi Strauss Europe (after the restructuring), who have told me that they copy other brands. This has, as far as I have been told, mostly been on cuts for clothes as they have struggled to make clothing which suits the european market. But as the clumsy Levi's employee who visited this thread pointed out, they also copy jeans styles. Funny thing that he seemed to disappear shortly after making that post. Not really the most strategic thing to post...

This entire thing has potential PR disaster written all over it:

- bullying smaller brands who "pay tribute" to Levi's

- Levi's being widely looked upon as having inferior quality

- Levi's themselves infringing on copyright laws

And considering how hooked up people are at this forum, you guys at Levi's must be shaking in your pants!

I was actually at BiG on tuesday (and the days before ;-), when the news pretty much hit, and my heart goes out to you guys. This must be pretty devastating considering that you must have had incredibly small margins selling these jeans at the low prices you were selling them at.

Louche if those other companies have trademarked any of what you say is being copied then they have the right and should go after Levis. If not theres nothing that Levis is doing wrong.

[the black arm]

I know this isn't going to be popular here and understand that I am not a big supporter of large corporations. If you read some of my posts I'm the opposite.

Having said all that I have seen in the past decade a very disturbing trend. Because I am in a creative field and my livelihood depends on people respecting my copyright I am sensitive to these issues.As should be all creatives. The trend I'm seeing and its evident in the posts here is that a large portion of society thinks its alright to infringe on copyright and trademarks as long as it (society) is getting what it wants (very narcissistic). The napster thing is an example of copyright infringement and this trademark thing is another. The real question is why did these companies that are infringing on the trademark go a head when its clear that its an infringement? I know its the evil Levis but if a large corporation can't protect its image (copyrighted materials or a trademarked company identity) how can a little guy protect his in this global market? Just because you might not like what the company is doing doesn't give another company the right to use their trademark. Thats the bottom line.

As I understand no court has yet determined which companies are in fact infringing, please don't assume because levi's sues a company it is in fact infringing.

No one has said that Levis can't protect its image. The issue I have is levi's approach. Levi's has MANY options to deal with the japanese companies, lawsuit being one of them. Simply asking them to change is another, licensing still another. Many, many options.

I'm upset with the levi's company because once again it is showing that at a corporate level it just doesn't get it, its treating the japanese denim companies in the same manner it would treat a "thai knock-off" manufacturer and coming out with all guns blazing. Intent of the japanese manufacturers is important.

[airfrogusmc]

As I understand no court has yet determined which companies are in fact infringing, please don't assume because levi's sues a company it is in fact infringing.

No one has said that Levis can't protect its image. The issue I have is levi's approach. Levi's has MANY options to deal with the japanese companies, lawsuit being one of them. Simply asking them to change is another, licensing still another. Many, many options.

I'm upset with the levi's company because once again it is showing that at a corporate level it just doesn't get it, its treating the japanese denim companies in the same manner it would treat a "thai knock-off" manufacturer and coming out with all guns blazing. Intent of the japanese manufacturers is important.

I totally understand that it hasn't been decided but quality should have no bearing on whether the law has been broken or not. If you're a company in question why not just change your arcuate so it complies and trademark it or better yet do that before you start production?

The thing again that I find most disturbing is that not many see this as the offenders problem and its their responsibility to comply but its the problem of the company that is protecting its image.

Oh and just another thought I feel it should be the companies responsibility if there any question to make sure its not in any kind of trademark problem not Levis to contact them and try and work something out after the fact. They should have considered this before they went into production.

[Louche]

Louche if those other companies have trademarked any of what you say is being copied then they have the right and should go after Levis. If not theres nothing that Levis is doing wrong.

I agree. But even though they might not in legal terms be infringing on copyright laws - they are certainly still copying from what others are doing down to very particular details. I don't have any extensive knowledge about where one draws the line at these laws, as that is not my career field, but morally I feel it is safe to say that the intention to copy is there - even though they probably can't be penalised for it. Besides, who is willing to take legal action, with all the time and costs that goes into it..?

The answer to that is obviously Levi's, a company that leans itself on an immaterial product quality, in stead of actually producing jeans and clothing of high quality and innovation. They actually use the term "immaterial product quality" internally at Levi's. Pretty disgusting...but it does make sense as the average consumer doesn't care about actual physical quality, but rather what the perception is.

Even though Levi's probably would have a good case if they were being brought to court, in the eyes of the consumers they would probably still be viewed upon as guilty by intention.

[zelah]

doesn't care about actual physical quality, but rather what the perception is

90% of superfuture? what?

[sexualharrasmentpanda]

VERY GOOD POINT......

What is going on with that...anyone????

keep that shit on the D/L

[mcflip]

What matters is does X have the trademarked arcuate and they do and can Y make a jean that doesn't break the law and the answer to that would be yes then you have to follow the law. As much as I think Levis sucks at allot of stuff they're right in this case.

I do agree with you, but my main point is, these arcurates ARE different, if only slightly. SDA/Samurai/Sugarcane all have arcurates which resemble, but aren't the same as their Levis counterparts. There's just too much grey area in "Other jeans can't have arcurates that resemble Levi's" It's incredibly difficult to quantify how similar/dissimilar a design is. It's kind of like trying to define pornography. Except for the Thai fakes, these jeans aren't trying to fool anyone.

[Begåvningsreserven]

why not just make the japanese repro companys pay them royalty and letting them use the Levi's trademarks?

"Made in Japan, endorsed by Levi's"

[Double D]

why not just make the japanese repro companys pay them royalty and letting them use the Levi's trademarks?

"Made in Japan, endorsed by Levi's"

Or Levis offering Samurai or similar company a licensing deal in which they produce a range of ultra-premium Levis jeans... call it "Levi's Vintage by Samurai" and get them to do one or two models which complement the LVC season.

I guess Levis missed a trick there, because it would have served them a whole lot better doing a deal like that (they could easily distribute to major Levis stores in the big cities and charge a hell of a lot per pair), than pissing on the Japanese denim market for trademark abuse.

[sneakeraddict]

Where does the line stop though?

You can't have golden stitching on the back pocket soon?

You can't have a paper / leather tag with red logoform on the upper right waistband ?

In fact, you cant have any paper / leather tag on the upper right waistband? (Just in case someone mistakes them for Levis from afar?)

Admittedly, Sugar Cane was too close for comfort, but THAT's IT.