Levi's Files Suit Against Polo

[Guest]

I think it's ridiculous how many brands they are actually targetting even though they may have a right to enforce their trademark.

[plan b.]

I dont understand all this hate towards Levis. They really dont have anything else to protect. I mean these small details is what distinguishes their brand. Its a part of their identity. In business you have to protect your trademarks or everyone will just use it and get rich off of it.

[rnrswitch]

I dont understand all this hate towards Levis. They really dont have anything else to protect. I mean these small details is what distinguishes their brand. Its a part of their identity. In business you have to protect your trademarks or everyone will just use it and get rich off of it.

What distinguishes their brand is poor quality, when you look at the "copycats" (ie samurai, sugarcane, etc). Levis cannot compete with these jeans, so their course of action is to put them out of business.

how can you say that details like the red tab, it's placement and the arcuate are frivolous details? i mean i would expect someone who didn't care about denim/jeans or its history to have that opinion but i'm pretty certain that these are things that you give a shit about or you probably wouldn't be on this board or reading this thread.

These laws are in place for a reason and what might seem frivolous to you i see as setting a precedent that this type of careless disregard for boundaries will not be tolerated. There are ways to pay respect to something that you admire other than ripping it off like Sugarcane or maybe Ralph Lauren/Polo did. Anyone who is an artist in any field should agree with that.

The red tab's placement and arcuate are only meaningful in the sense that we put a lot of emphasis on denim branding. Without a large denim craze those have absolutely no meaning to anyone wearing the jeans. I don't buy samurai, sugarcane, or even LVC jeans because of the "genius" placement of the red tab or design of the arcuate. The arcuate and red tab's meaning are derived from the million dollar marketing campaign put out by levis, not the placement of these brands.

Careless disregard for boundaries? I think levis has a careless disregard for boundaries when they are seeking monetary compensation for something that caused them no damages monetarily or otherwise. A cease and desist... I can see, but lawsuit claiming damages?

[chucksvintage]

For years since e.g.Lee Wrangler, Cant bustem Big Smith have been knocking off Levis and they have always defended there trademark. It would be silly for them not too. At least they care about there Heritage. After all they started it.

[Bill2]

Amen Madeline! The bad blood between people on this forum and levis makes no sense to me whatsoever. Levis is expected to protect their trademarks; and are required to so do as the holders of these trademarks. The government does not offer trademarks to those not capable or willing, or interested in protecting them, there's simply no point. Companies that are shown to be neglectful of their copyrights or trademarks are often denied their renewal.

Levis has not targeted brands in hopes of putting them out of business. They've gone after brands, big and small (Samurai and Ralph Lauren...) in order to protect their legal rights, nothing else. It is as much their legal responsibility to go after brands that make high quality goods that violate their trademarks just as much as brands that make inferior products!

Denimheads hating on levis is silly to me. Levis started all this! We could all be wearing woolen knickers still for christ's sake....

[partytaco]

...............

[partytaco]

Well said. Thank you.

Amen Madeline! The bad blood between people on this forum and levis makes no sense to me whatsoever. Levis is expected to protect their trademarks; and are required to so do as the holders of these trademarks. The government does not offer trademarks to those not capable or willing, or interested in protecting them, there's simply no point. Companies that are shown to be neglectful of their copyrights or trademarks are often denied their renewal.

Levis has not targeted brands in hopes of putting them out of business. They've gone after brands, big and small (Samurai and Ralph Lauren...) in order to protect their legal rights, nothing else. It is as much their legal responsibility to go after brands that make high quality goods that violate their trademarks just as much as brands that make inferior products!

Denimheads hating on levis is silly to me. Levis started all this! We could all be wearing woolen knickers still for christ's sake....

[theshonen8899]

I think Samurai, Sugarcane, Iron Heart and other notable reproductions are better off without the tabs and arcuates.

Well actually to tell you the truth that Samurai arcuate was badass.

[TragicBliss]

I don’t know. Levi's is getting pretty ridiculous lately... For instance, what's the point in branching off into completely new markets with products like this?

It's obvious to me what Levi's breadwinner is. If you want to really branch off into a completely new market try producing super high end denim in modern cuts as well as repros. And I'm not talking about LVC. That's not exactly high end. We all know who's out there doing it better than Levis, and that's who gets our money. I can't even tell you the last time I spent a dollar on some Levi's.

It isn't about hate. It's about corporate greed and trying to squash the little guy who's making a better product (in the case of Iron Heart, SugarCane, Self Edge, BIG, etc.) instead of pulling the 1UP and making what the niche market really demands.

This type of bullshit doesn't help their image whatsoever. Is there any other place besides maybe StyleForum or MyNudies where people are talking about this shit? Listen up Levi’s! You’re obviously watching.

EDIT:

This is how Levi's rakes in cash. WalMart exclusive!

[cuddlysheep]

feeling is mutual, theyre obviously protecting the public from knowing what we all know about well contructed quality denim. they want the public to remain ignorant. so theyre on a witch hunt for these small companies.who not only provides quality denim,but educates the customer what makes the jeans superior.levis dont want to talk about the crap quality of thier washed pair of walmart jeans made in sweatsops for pennies in the dollar. its really deeper than protecting copyrights. like tragic said, corporate greed.

It isn't about hate. It's about corporate greed and trying to squash the little guy who's making a better product (in the case of Iron Heart, SugarCane, Self Edge, BIG, etc.) instead of pulling the 1UP and making what the niche market really demands.

This type of bullshit doesn't help their image whatsoever. Is there any other place besides maybe StyleForum or MyNudies where people are talking about this shit? Listen up Levi’s! You’re obviously watching .

EDIT:

This is how Levi's rakes in cash. WalMart exclusive!

[Clench Million]

Also, isn't copyright infringement suppose to be more about copying of ideas and theft than just design.

Ugh... when we are talking about fashion the design IS the idea. It isn't like Levi's (or APC or Gap or whoever) has some brilliant ideas no one has ever through of. Typically these companies use the same fabric and the same old ideas (stripes, buttons down the front, indigo dye on jeans, yada) It is that they design their clothes in a certain way. The design is the entire point of a clothing company.

[Clench Million]

What distinguishes their brand is poor quality, when you look at the "copycats" (ie samurai, sugarcane, etc). Levis cannot compete with these jeans, so their course of action is to put them out of business.

If you honestly think that Levis can't compete with those brands or that they are in any danger of being usurped as the major jean company int he world by Sugarcane and Samurai you are fucking nuts. Those jeans dont' even come close to competeting in the marketplace.

They are better jeans, sure, but they aren't competting with Levis. Levis isn't worried about them taking business and are suing to prevent Samurai from taking over their marketshare.

I mean... come on.

[theshonen8899]

Well you have to think. Levi's isn't exactly aiming for people who want to wear them for w/e years without washing. The quality of their jeans don't get too sour until you hit LVC, where most denimheads will jump up and say, "Screw those! Get a pair of SC41947!!"

The red tab and the arcuate aren't exactly functional so what are they? I'd say an attractive design to make us reminience of the good ole days with Levi's. But no matter what, they are Levi's idea. We'll just have to trust them with our future reproductions.

EDIT: Btw, I really want to see those jeans that offended Levi's. I can really only imagine Warehouse suing RRL.

[thegr8est333]

I doubt Levi's is "trying" to squash the little guy. Most likely they already are. And when I say squash I'm definitely not referring to quality. Levi's is a big corporation and I'm sure they care about one thing: profits. They understand that the average denim consumer doesnt know or care what the fuck slubby means. And they also know that they don't need to 1up all the niche denim discussed on this forum to make money. They probably realize the effort in getting all these "niche" customers is pretty insignificant to the market they already have. I dont think it's all that bad for a business want to make a profit; it's what makes our economy run. And in order to make that profit it is only expected they would protect their trademarks. It's sad to say but if a Levi's executive saw this he'd probably laugh because he knows that for everyone of these anti-levis post theres an exponentially greater number of people buying those fucking wal-mart pants. laughing all the way to the bank....

[michaeljkrell]

Lawyers win again...

[horriblyjollyjinx]

Your kidding right? My beef is with the fact that you can copyright such a meaningless stitch or a red tab with certain placement. I would like to see the design in question, because I highly doubt it looks much like the levis arcuate. Also, isn't copyright infringement suppose to be more about copying of ideas and theft than just design. I don't think anyone bought Polo jeans thinking they are Levis. If levis wins this law suit I would love to see some actual proof of monetary loss due to the back pocket stitching. It seems they will lose more money with the amount of money they throw at their lawyers than they should get from the lawsuit.

oh, so why get worked up if the arcuate and red tab is meaningless?

design=idea. also this is a trademark, not a design.

[stuntastic]

I'll take a picture of my notebook. Maybe Levis will sue them.

Arcs + Red tabs...

[Paul T]

I'm suprised aynone is siding with Ralph Lauren. Am I the only person who finds their fake frat-boy traditionalism crass and unconvincing? All the stuff I've seen of theirs is made in Malaysia or Bangla Desh and retails for US-made prices.

levi's pretty much invented the idea of 'branding' for jeans, if they hadn't been suing people for copying their trademarks since the 1870s they'd be long dead today. On the bright side, the only real story we have of how Jacob Davis invented jeans comes from a court case, where a competitor was infringing their copyrights.

Yes, I'm disappointed Levi's closed down their own factories and moved production off shore. But the company nearly died because they didn't do it, while competitors like Gap, Ralph Lauren and others had been producing offshore for a decade or more.

[tweeds]

Paul, do you refer as well to their Rodeo line?

i ask with interest because the old Rodeo apparel has been, for awhile now, bandied about as a piece of good workmanship and the denim certainly seems to hold up to scrutiny and comparison.

at the same time, i agree that we are being a little too sentimental about the whole matter regarding levi's "beating up" the little guys (in any case RL hardly qualifies, being themselves a huge business)

[airportlobbytx]

People who think Levi's is trying to "squash competition" are missing the point. Levi's is too big to see most of these companies as competition. The point is that Levi's has an intellectual property, which it feels is worth money to Levi's, and will be lost if it isn't protected by filing suit against parties that infringe on the property. As such, I don't find much reason to get too excited, one way or the other.

As far as the illwill towards Levi's for not catering to denim nerds, it can be argued that Levi's is doing what they've always done. Marketing a moderately priced pair of jeans to a large public that is fairly indifferent (if not antogonistic) to fashion and who wears the jeans as work or leisure wear. While some of the details in the jeans may have changed, 501s, to most people, are the same jeans they've always been. And for 30 bucks, a pair of 501s or 517s ain't too bad. With the sad exception that they are no longer made in America.

[gimmegimme]

Just to clarify, as others have mentioned, this is a trademark matter, not a copyright matter. Levi's has the legal right to pursue any other company that has a confusingly similar trademark to theirs...the only thing in question here is why they're doing it now as opposed to back when all the other companies started using their trademarks.

Here are a few of their 57 registered design trademarks:

The USPTO has a searchable database (http://www.uspto.gov/) if anyone is interested.

As someone else pointed out, why would they go to all the trouble of having these designs protected if they weren't going to enforce it? I didn't see any of you starting a thread hating on Lego when they sued Megablocks?

[blm14]

I dont understand all this hate towards Levis. They really dont have anything else to protect. I mean these small details is what distinguishes their brand. Its a part of their identity. In business you have to protect your trademarks or everyone will just use it and get rich off of it.

+1. Truth!

[blm14]

It isn't about hate. It's about corporate greed and trying to squash the little guy who's making a better product (in the case of Iron Heart, SugarCane, Self Edge, BIG, etc.) instead of pulling the 1UP and making what the niche market really demands.

I think you're misconstruing levi strauss' motives here somewhat. Almost all of these cases levi's has settled out of court. My guess would be they are NOT interested in crushing these companies otherwise they would seek monetary damages that actually COULD crush eg sugarcane. Probably in most cases they get the smaller companies to agree to change their designs. Bullying behavior? Sure! Within levi's rights? Yup. Have they crushed anyone's business or caused them financial ruin? Well let's see - BiG, sugarcane, samurai, flat head, and all the rest are still there, still doing plenty of business. So I posit that levi's intent here is NOT to crush anybody, otherwise they would have been crushed already. QED.

In other words, levi's could care less if companies like sugarcane or whatever want to make jeans. Or if they want to make jeans that are much higher quality than the ones levis themselves produce, with much higher price points. They care if their trademarks are infringed. Quite frankly, I view this as good thing for these small niche companies because it frees them from feeling like they have to limit themselves to things that look like levi's in order to be "authentic" or whatever. This will probably prod them into actually coming up with original designs. Yay!

[Guest soleFLY]

levis sueing everybody nowadays huh?

[darkanimal]

yeah levis suing is played out!

[Clench Million]

feeling is mutual, theyre obviously protecting the public from knowing what we all know about well contructed quality denim. they want the public to remain ignorant. so theyre on a witch hunt for these small companies.who not only provides quality denim,but educates the customer what makes the jeans superior..

Boy, you're right. Levi's is realized that the underground samizdat pamphlets that Sugarcane and other small companies like Ralph Lauren were distributing to the masses was causing them to learn the horrible secrets about quality denim... that Levi's jeans were made of corrosive acid that ruins their fertility while Samurai and Sugarcane denim just might make someone be able to fly (if worn for at least 8 months w/o washing).

What else could Evil Levi do except try to sue them for tradmark violation in order to stop the spread of information?

It might be too late. The damage might already be done. Recent sales charts show a 600% hike in raw selveage jeans costing 250+ dollars amongst working people in the lower middle class and lower classes.

[Clench Million]

Anyway, count me in with the people who have no hate for Levi's.

For the market they go after, Levi's are the best. Lots of talk about shitty quality on here, but for cheap jeans what would you rather wear? Wranglers? Gap jeans? Levi's are still great jeans for hte price.

And I don't get the talk about "the public" learning that Levi's are crap and turning to buy expensive japanese jeans. Let's face it, this forum is entirely about fashion. Wearing Samurai's is done for the fashion, not for any utility. I've had pairs of 30 dollar Levi's that I've worn almost every day for years and years which still look prefectly fine. In fact, they don't have any rips or holes or anything other than at the bottom of the heels. Why would your average person need anything other than that?

[thelion1856]

levis is like that old person who once was that admired young handsome guy who could get all the pussy life threw at him but is now in a nursing home with dementia paranoia and a danger to himself and others. what a shame.

[wEstSidE]

i think the misunderstanding here is over the trademark.

levi's does have an obligation to its shareholders. the question is how far their trademark should extend. personally i don't think that they have the ability to trademark the tab itself. they can claim that the red color and text is iconic, but they're going after something extremely broad (in terms of clothing logos). polo, for example, uses a logo on the chest of their shirts, as does fred perry. lacoste did this on their tennis shirts long before polo and perry did, but did that prevent anyone.

i am also of the opinion that it would be beneficial for them to lay off some companies. RL is a threat to them, sort of, but our beloved japanese marks have very little appeal to the consumer of levi's. those who enjoy the look are far more likely to turn to STFs or some other 501, unless they are true fanatics...

[Clench Million]

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.