Levi's Files Suit Against Polo

[Paul T]

Tip, my knowledge of the Ralph Lauren lines could be written on the back of a postage stamp, I went into their store in Greenwich Village, felt slightly soiled, and walked out again. I'm irrationally prejudiced against them, as certain people might be about Levi's and other corporate behemoths.

[wEstSidE]

the greenwich village store is shite.

[wEstSidE]

Depends on what they are planning to do. If they actually try to get millions of dollars in damages from Sugercane and so on then I'd lose some respect. But if their goal is just to settle out of court for a nominal and a promise those companies won't keep ripping off their trademarks, then that sounds good to me. Levi's should only try to damage the big boys, if anyone at all, but that doens't mean the little boys should get away with the same offense.

I don't quite get the polo comparison. Who knwos who did it first... but if the person who did it first had a trademark that hadn't expired then I'm sure they would have sued the people who copied them.

i'm saying that trademarking the idea of putting a tab on the back pocket is like trademarking putting an embroidered logo on the chest of a tennis shirt, regardless of what the logo is.

[twistedtrees]

Maybe they (Levi's) could try something like hip hop does with sampling. You can use the tabs & arcs, but you pay a small royalty. The smaller the company, the less royalty.

But that wouldn't work, there have been so many great albums that have been put on hold for years or scrapped altogether because they couldn't get sample clearances.

But, the way you look at it is that so many musical artists from obscurity get recognized, get fame, then get pissed & sue because they were sampled when-had they not been sample in the first place-they would still be in obscurity.

BTW, could someone explain how the copyright or trademark can still stand after well over 100 years. Do they run out, or is that just patents?

[Paul T]

"BTW, could someone explain how the copyright or trademark can still stand after well over 100 years. Do they run out, or is that just patents?"

Patents run out, trademarks can be renewed. The red tag was one of the first clothing trademarks. It was instituted in 1936 - the patent Levi's owned on riveted clothing had run out, and they wanted something to differentiate their product from other riveted pants, like Lee's. It's been renewed regularly since then, which is why it's still current.

[ProfMonnitoff]

I don't actually dislike RL but damn their denim style guide is dreadful... it gets even worse

[rnrswitch]

I heart Levis.

[rnrswitch]

I am in no way defending polo... I mean their stuff is crap and fratboyish. I just think that if somebody sues McDonalds for burning themselves with the apple pie filling and that lawsuit is called frivolous then this should also be frivolous. At least there were damages in the McDonald's case. Has there been any damage to Levis monetarily or otherwise. Has their image been soiled because of these copycats. Maybe they should go after the Thai folks knocking off their jeans at least they would have a strong case there, but they can't go after them so they pick on slightly larger denim producers.

I am just shit sick of Corporations copyrighting such meaningless and frivolous things and then attempting to make cash of of the copyright infringement.

[airfrogusmc]

I know this isn't going to be a popular stand here but I have a friend that is a corporate attorney and I was talking with him the other day about Levis and their sudden crack down on companies that may or may not be infringing on their trade mark. He told me Levis has to do it or they could loose their entire brand indentity. The way the law is if they don't aggresively protect their trade mark Levis or amy corporation could loose it. Something about the way the law is written.

Apple records and Apple Computers just settled a huge trade mark infringement case. He said that its not a matter of Levis being good or bad its a matter if they don't go after every case they see that even comes close they stand a chance of loosing their brand identity.

Like it or not a large corporation like Levis has the right to protect their trademark. That means they will probably go after anything thats even close and let the courts decide what does or doesn't infringe. But from Levis perspectuve they certainly can't afford to loose their corporate identity.

[blm14]

airfrog is probably correct. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark

Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual use of the trademark. These rights will diminish over time if a mark is not actively used. In the case of a trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to removal from the register after a certain period of time.

In the U.S., failure to use a trademark for this period of time, aside from the corresponding impact on product quality, will result in abandonment of the mark, whereby any party may use the mark. An abandoned mark is not irrevocably in the public domain, but may instead be re-registered by any party which has re-established exclusive and active use, and must be associated or linked with the original mark owner. Further, if a court rules that a trademark has become "generic" through common use (such that the mark no longer performs the essential trademark function and the average consumer no longer considers that exclusive rights attach to it), the corresponding registration may also be ruled invalid.

{emphasis added)

In other words if levi's doesn't actively enforce it's trademark rights to the arcuate and other imagery, they risk losing their ability to keep those symbols for themselves.

[coleslawyum]

I don't actually dislike RL but damn their denim style guide is dreadful... it gets even worse

Word, this guide is so hokey, whoever thought this up should be forced to dress like this for the rest of his/her life.

[airfrogusmc]

airfrog is probably correct. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark

{emphasis added)

In other words if levi's doesn't actively enforce it's trademark rights to the arcuate and other imagery, they risk losing their ability to keep those symbols for themselves.

Thats pretty much what my friend said.

[Paul T]

Yeah! I'm gonna start buckling my belt on the side 'for attitude'!

[pacioli]

Joanna Ramey from the WWD trade pub reported today that LS&Co has gone after A&F for their Ruehl brand jeans's back pocket embroidery, which looks like this (for womens...looking for a pic of mens):

Notable quotes:

"Levi's is seeking unspecified losses in profits and other damages. The company [Levi Strauss & Co.] wants A&F to turn over inventory and all materials used in the design or associated with promoting the Ruehl jeans."

"Levi's cited the likelihood of 'consumer confusion, mistake or deception' over the identity of the Ruehl stitching."

[ang_kangkong]

I actually used to put the buckle to the side for "attitude". I went back to buckling in the middle for "convenience".

[rnrswitch]

I actually buckle it in back for homoness.

[Thorns]

Why do we care about 1/2 cent worth of polyester blend thread and a tag?

[wEstSidE]

the same reason levi's does.

[kjyuan]

wow levi's co is going crazy. sue sue sue. sue happy

[hideout]

the same reason levi's does.

because we're trying to protect the rights to our registered trademarks while preventing unauthorized use of our intellectual property?

[rnrswitch]

I think I am going to copyright brown hair, brown eyes, rugged good looks, and a mole on the butt, because if I don't maybe I will lose my identity as a person...

[Charlie Delta]

airfrog is probably correct. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark

{emphasis added)

In other words if levi's doesn't actively enforce it's trademark rights to the arcuate and other imagery, they risk losing their ability to keep those symbols for themselves.

While this is a very valid reason, it doesn't look like that this is the reason levis gives for their actions:

Notable quotes:

"Levi's is seeking unspecified losses in profits and other damages. The company [Levi Strauss & Co.] wants A&F to turn over inventory and all materials used in the design or associated with promoting the Ruehl jeans."

"Levi's cited the likelihood of 'consumer confusion, mistake or deception' over the identity of the Ruehl stitching."

[gimmegimme]

While this is a very valid reason, it doesn't look like that this is the reason levis gives for their actions:

I think some people may be confused about the idea of a trademark...I'm not an expert, but I work in the field, so here's a rundown for those that are interested:

-trademarks protect a word, design, slogan/catchphrase, or design element

-copyrights protect an idea, ie. a song, book, movie, etc.

-patents protect inventions, ie. mechanical devices, processes, pharmaceutical compositions

The criteria for obtaining a trademark (which is different in every country, but usually only slightly) is for the design/word/phrase to be unique, non-descriptive, and not already registered by someone else (among other smaller factors).

Each trademark has to list the goods and services for which it will be used, and has to be used on the product/service in real life. Broader protection is given through common law through the status of "brand identity"...meaning, Coca-cola's tms probably don't cover automobiles, but they would still be able to legally stop someone from branding their line of cars with coca-cola, because the general public would likely assume the cars would be produced by Coke.

This is how Levi's trademarks come into play...besides the fact that their marks are being used by other companies for the exact goods (jeans) that their trademarks cover, its easily proveable that the average consumer would confuse a pair of japanese reproductions as an actual pair of Levis. This is how they won their battles...and as we all know, once you win once, a precedent is set, which is probably why they went after the smaller companies first...to establish a precedent for going after the big guys.

As far as the damages are concerned...that's purely greed/legal costs.

Now go ahead and bring on the mature comments like "Levi's sucks moose-wang".

[blm14]

I think the whole unspecified damages thing may be a red-herring. Legally speaking, you cannot sue somebody solely to change their actions. You have to seek punititive damages, I believe. I'm not a lawyer or a law expert by any means, but as I understand it if you sue someone you have to do it for money, by definition. Again, look at the OUTCOMES, not what's said in the suit; I doubt seriously Levi's has ever collected more money than that required to cover legal costs of the suits. If they had, all these tiny japanese company would have gone kaput when they were sued, which they clearly have not.

[gimmegimme]

I think the whole unspecified damages thing may be a red-herring. Legally speaking, you cannot sue somebody solely to change their actions. You have to seek punititive damages, I believe. I'm not a lawyer or a law expert by any means, but as I understand it if you sue someone you have to do it for money, by definition. Again, look at the OUTCOMES, not what's said in the suit; I doubt seriously Levi's has ever collected more money than that required to cover legal costs of the suits. If they had, all these tiny japanese company would have gone kaput when they were sued, which they clearly have not.

Good point. I know its different for you guys in the US, but in Canada, you only receive damages for money lost. So the court would determine if in fact RL was taking away from Levis' sales before they awarded any damages. And even if Levi's asked for millions of dollars, it doesn't mean they're going to get it...but they're obviously going to aim high.

[Charlie Delta]

Maybe I should've made more clear that I was in this case only talking about this post that Pacioli made, and not about any of the "repro" brands

Joanna Ramey from the WWD trade pub reported today that LS&Co has gone after A&F for their Ruehl brand jeans's back pocket embroidery, which looks like this (for womens...looking for a pic of mens):

Notable quotes:

"Levi's is seeking unspecified losses in profits and other damages. The company [Levi Strauss & Co.] wants A&F to turn over inventory and all materials used in the design or associated with promoting the Ruehl jeans."

"Levi's cited the likelihood of 'consumer confusion, mistake or deception' over the identity of the Ruehl stitching."

[gimmegimme]

Sorry Duck...I didn't mean to directly contradict what you were saying...I quoted you by accident.

In any case, if Levi's didn't have the legal right to pursue all these companies, then they wouldn't win...so like it or lump it, the law is above our personal opinions.

And contrary to all the things I've said...I personally don't like what's happened either...there are only a few things that make jeans interesting (besides the denim), and I really liked a lot of the repro brands' backpocket designs.

[rnrswitch]

I think some people may be confused about the idea of a trademark...I'm not an expert, but I work in the field, so here's a rundown for those that are interested:

-trademarks protect a word, design, slogan/catchphrase, or design element

-copyrights protect an idea, ie. a song, book, movie, etc.

-patents protect inventions, ie. mechanical devices, processes, pharmaceutical compositions

The criteria for obtaining a trademark (which is different in every country, but usually only slightly) is for the design/word/phrase to be unique, non-descriptive, and not already registered by someone else (among other smaller factors).

Each trademark has to list the goods and services for which it will be used, and has to be used on the product/service in real life. Broader protection is given through common law through the status of "brand identity"...meaning, Coca-cola's tms probably don't cover automobiles, but they would still be able to legally stop someone from branding their line of cars with coca-cola, because the general public would likely assume the cars would be produced by Coke.

This is how Levi's trademarks come into play...besides the fact that their marks are being used by other companies for the exact goods (jeans) that their trademarks cover, its easily proveable that the average consumer would confuse a pair of japanese reproductions as an actual pair of Levis. This is how they won their battles...and as we all know, once you win once, a precedent is set, which is probably why they went after the smaller companies first...to establish a precedent for going after the big guys.

As far as the damages are concerned...that's purely greed/legal costs.

Now go ahead and bring on the mature comments like "Levi's sucks moose-wang".

The average consumer would buy Samurai, Sugar Cane jeans with a red tab on them and an arcuate, but never notice that the Leather tab and labels all say Samurai jeans? Not anywhere on most Japanese denim does it say levis or pretend to be levis with the purpose of deceipt. The purpose of copyright law is to protect against fraud and brand identity. In no way does Japanese denim or Polo destroy levis brand identity nor do they try to blur the lines between them and Levis.

This is copyright law gone awry.

[gimmegimme]

The average consumer would buy Samurai, Sugar Cane jeans with a red tab on them and an arcuate, but never notice that the Leather tab and labels all say Samurai jeans? Not anywhere on most Japanese denim does it say levis or pretend to be levis with the purpose of deceipt. The purpose of copyright law is to protect against fraud and brand identity. In no way does Japanese denim or Polo destroy levis brand identity nor do they try to blur the lines between them and Levis.

This is copyright law gone awry.

This is trademark law...and is legitimate as stated above.

[dino might]

OH SHIT! NOW GUCCIS GOING AFTER ACAPULCO GOLD!

(psyche)