New developments in the Levi's vs Japanese repros story

[Charlie Delta]

I thought a new thread for this would be appropriate,

in this way we would have all the information and discussion in one place instead of spread over a couple of threads as is the case right now.

Some quick links (in order of appearance):

- how it all started (recently atleast, I guess we are all familiar with the Evis story): Levi's takes on Japanese Denim Resellers and Manufacturers

-Japanese denim and Levi...what do you think...HYPE or FACT:

- zipangu treasures(ebay store selling japanese jeans abroad if I'm not mistaken, got closed down by Levi's)

- Sugar Cane's new arcuate plan (not sure if a direct link has been proven, also word on them dropping their repro line altogether can't seem to find a whole thread about it)

- Levi's files suit against Polo

- Warehouse to seize producing repros?

- Studion d'Artisan aswell?

In one of those threads someone mentioned that Eternal and FOB factory are next?

I'm reading things that Levi's is claiming rights on fits and 5 pocket jeans?

Unfortunatly I'm not able to give anymore info about it, but I thought the least I could do was to try to get things organised.

Let's try to get a discussion going about this, instead of having to jump between several threads.

GO!

[beatle]

Smart..maybe Mods will be able to add some off the Warehouse and D'artisan thread to this one...

[hawkeye]

Levi's says Abercrombie pickpocketed design

Denim maker files another lawsuit, this time against teen clothier Abercrombie & Fitch, over theft of its trademarked back-pocket design.

July 26 2007: 10:31 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Denim maker Levi's Strauss & Co. has filed a second lawsuit against another competitor this month alleging that the retailer - Abercrombie & Fitch - illegally stole its trademarked back-pocket stitching design, according to a published report Thursday. Industry trade publication Women's Wear Daily on Tuesday reported on its Web site that Levi's filed the same lawsuit against Polo Ralph Lauren.

In its latest suit filed in U.S. federal court in San Francisco, Levi's, citing trademark infringement, accused teen clothing chain of using the trademarked pocket design of connecting arches on Abercrombie's "Ruehl" brand jeans and other unspecified products, the WWD report said.

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

The report said Levi's is seeking unspecified losses in profits and other damages and that the company wants Abercrombie to turn over inventory and all materials used in the design or associated with promoting the Ruehl jeans.

Levi's lawsuit could prove to be a worrisome distraction for Abercrombie, coming at a time when most retailers are preparing for the important back-to-school shopping season.

WWD.com said Abercrombie officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/26/news/companies/levis_lawsuit/index.htm

[Cali]

Cross post.

I am stil curious about the nature of Levi's action. Was it a cease and desist or a trial order or what? Attacking 5 pocket jeans smacks of corporate terrorism against small botique manufacturers. Polo was bound to lose on the arcuate but no way they will be rolled into this cut nonsense.

[gimmegimme]

Japanese denim and Levi...what do you think...HYPE or FACT:

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=21936

zipangu treasures:

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=27014

[gimmegimme]

Cross post.

I am stil curious about the nature of Levi's action. Was it a cease and desist or a trial order or what? Attacking 5 pocket jeans smacks of corporate terrorism against small botique manufacturers. Polo was bound to lose on the arcuate but no way they will be rolled into this cut nonsense.

Court order.

[cheep]

ive been talking to gordon about this all day... he brought up something that makes perfect sense... and id like to share it with you.

Levi's came up with a good idea for marking their product for recognition and

had the clever idea to trademark them. Brands and customers fighting for the

arcs and tabs on non-Levi products just strengthens Levi's point and

rationalizes their view on brand identity protection.

Levi's knows that a lot of people buy these Japanes brands jeans because they

look like Levi's or an interpretation of them. Look at the lengths people will

go to get the arcs and tabs as opposed to plain pockets and no tab. Every time

that happens Levi's wins. The brands know this too and the more customers who

stress about the arcs and tabs to the brands the more these brands will feel

that they will not flourish without these identifying marks.

just think about that for a while

[mrip]

Anyone have pics of those Abercrombie jeans that Levis is attacking? I don't think anyone on here is very familiar with the Abercrombie arcs.

[mizanation]

time to take denim in a new direction. we need to create new standards (sorry for the pun) and new designs.

[hawkeye]

While that might be disguised as a joke I was serious about them claiming the 5 pocket layout as theirs, that is just rediculous!

Wouldnt they have to sue LEE too, I mean everybody makes a 5 pocket jean, seems a little far fetched that they would be suing over this.

[/url]

This post seems to suggest that D'Artisan is just branching out and doing their own thing. Maybe we are jumping the gun about why they are dropping some of their styles. I cant wait to see what they come up with, the idea that SDA is going to become more original makes me more interested in them than ever.

[theetruscan]

Wouldnt they have to sue LEE too, I mean everybody makes a 5 pocket jean, seems a little far fetched that they would be suing over this.

No, they can sue, or not sue, anyone over the claimed infringement (I assume that's the claim). I suspect they're mostly threatening to sue, not actually suing, if that's what is going on here.

It would be stupid of them to sue larger companies because those companies could almost certainly get the case dismissed with prejudice, which would limit Levi's ability to threaten lawsuits. Lee is a larger company or a branch of a larger company (almost certainly the second) and almost certainly would easily mount an effective legal defense, planning to recoup the costs from Levi's at the end.

I'm not a lawyer, but knowing the conditions for copyright and trademarks to stay valid, combined with the very limited protection for design under IP law, it seems implausible that Levi's could actually win any court claim wrt 5 pocket pants.

[salaami]

imho, ls&co are the orignators(or should i say jake davis&co.), so they have a right to defend their trademarks. i always felt(correct me if im wrong) that the repro brands used these marks as a nod to the originals, not to make someone think that they are actual levis. any pundit knows that levis best product does not compare in quality to the brands we wear and love. i dont like wearing the tabs&arcs because levis quality in general is so low that i dont want anybody to mistake my joints as levis. i dont want to give them props even indirectly. when they sold their shuttle looms it was the start of the end of their heritage. like ed o.g. said: ''if you think another man can do it better than you can/let em'/ dont sweat em' duke/because he did the job/that you couldn't do."

[g0to]

this is pretty fucking retarded, its not like the people(for the most part) buying levi's prewashes even know taht brands like sugarcane etc exist... just more publicity

[Cali]

Court order.

Anybody have a link to this order? I would very much like to read what a judge said on this matter.

[theetruscan]

But what was the injunction for? Why did Levi's have a right to sue? My understanding is that Levi's owns a registered trademark on the Arcuates and Tabs, but no rights whatsoever to a five-pocket pant, or jeans in general. Is the Injunction fallout from the arcs and tabs thing, or is there another thrust being made here?

[gimmegimme]

But what was the injunction for? Why did Levi's have a right to sue? My understanding is that Levi's owns a registered trademark on the Arcuates and Tabs, but no rights whatsoever to a five-pocket pant, or jeans in general. Is the Injunction fallout from the arcs and tabs thing, or is there another thrust being made here?

Not all intellectual property law is based on filed registrations...common law (previous decisions) and public perception can also be argued (doesn't mean anyone will win...but they'll know how to put a good argument).

[gimmegimme]

Well, without seeing the actual injunction I could not say. But I can only assume that Levi's does not have a patent on five-pocket jeans, I mean, that would be fucking ridiculous, but they can and do have a copyright on arcuates and tabs. So the injunction would be to stop producers of making like arcuates and tabs. And given the extent of the lawsuit, it seems like they went after any producer with even a similar design, which they can but won't necessary get a binding decision. I will keep my eye out for any legal documents on this matter and try and post them.

For a law student you use a lot of incorrect terminology. They couldn't get a patent for five-pocket jeans, and even if they could it would have long expired....and they have trademarks for the arc's and tabs, not copyrights.

[Cali]

I am a second year law student at the University of Utah, hence why I am stuck in Utah. Anyway, Levi Strauss did not petition a "court order" per se; rather, they sought what was called an injunction, which is basically a temporary order issued by a court to have some party or parties stop some particular action. In this particular case it was to have several jean makers stop making jeans [t]hey felt violated a copyright they hold. It is only binding when a judge has heard and ruled on the matter, which than would in fact be a "court order." If you want to see the issued injunction, ask the party or parties who recieved them. But trust me, they are fucking boring and usually very long.

Also, I would say it is safe to assume that you will not see the judges written decision on this matter either. Why? Because they don't have to write one. Sometimes lower court judges, perhaps to some extent federal circuit judges will write a summary judgment, but only if they feel a particular case might set some precedence. In this case Levi's did, as sad it is might be for me to say, very much have a right to sue and would therefore not set some later precedence for other judges to follow. As such, the judge hearing this case will not give an opinion, usually. The only judges that are obligated to write their decision are those in the Supreme Court. So, unless this matter gets to the highest court (which is very doubtful) you will not read about how they derived a decision. Hope this helps.

Thanks, this is very helpful. As far as Levi's right to sue I am interested on what grounds they can claim a fairly blanket exclusion of all the SDA products listed. The 103s, for instance are not very close to a 'true' 66, but are rather a 66 inspired cut. If they indeed claim that all these jeans are violative of their IP the same would apply to almost all other jeans that are anything like any Levis cut, right?

As far as my limited understanding goes it is only the clearly identifiable branding on clothing that has recieved any real copyright protection in the garment industry, things like the Nike swoosh or the tabs and arcs. Any greater protection would lead to gigantic monopolies for each recognizeable garment.

[gimmegimme]

Well, without seeing the actual injunction I could not say. But I can only assume that Levi's does not have a patent on five-pocket jeans, I mean, that would be fucking ridiculous. But they can and do have a copyright on arcuates and tabs. So the injunction would be to stop producers of making like arcuates and tabs. And given the extent of the lawsuit, it seems like they went after any producer with even a similar design, which they can but won't always get a binding decision. I will keep my eye out for any legal documents on this matter and try and post them.

LOL. Trademark = product, Copyright = written. Give me a break, my intellectual prop. class was my first year. But I will make sure I use the correct terminology from here on out just for you.

And I do not think I ever said they could get a patent on five-pocket jeans. Did I?

Its important if you're explaining something to a group of readers that you use proper terminology, otherwise everything you say loses its creditability.

[gimmegimme]

lemme grab you a cookie.

[gimmegimme]

I am not trying to get creditability, I was only giving information on the question asked. That's all.

You don't want your statements to be credible?

[datasupa]

And I do not think I ever said they could get a patent on five-pocket jeans. Did I?

you said you 'assume they don't have one, because it would be ridiculous if they did' (to paraphrase). when in fact they couldn't possibly have one, as gimme pointed out. no assumptions needed. you lose this case, counselor.

p.s. creditability has nothing to do with being credible

[poly800rock]

the real question is how does US law crossover to Japan

[gimmegimme]

you said you 'assume they don't have one, because it would be ridiculous if they did' (to paraphrase). when in fact they couldn't possibly have one, as gimme pointed out. no assumptions needed. you lose this case, counselor.

p.s. creditability has nothing to do with being credible

That was my fault.

[rnrswitch]

the real question is how does US law crossover to Japan

I don't think it does, but I do think that SDA, Samurai, and Sugar Cane are increasingly looking to market their top quality jeans to the US. If Evisu can catch on then those brands can also.

[poly800rock]

That's a good question poly. The answer is because the products were bought and sold here they are subject to U.S. laws, not the other way around.

i understand that part, but i'm curious as to if it's only the companies that sell their products to a store overseas that are affected only, but it wouldn't make a difference to those products stictly sold in japan

[gimmegimme]

Alrighty then...that's all cleared up. I don't mean to come across as an asshole (all the time), but I think its important for those who are asking IP related question to get factual answers so as to not make assumptions.

Maybe we should invite an esteemed guest speaker to answer all of our queries.

[gimmegimme]

i understand that part, but i'm curious as to if it's only the companies that sell their products to a store overseas that are affected only, but it wouldn't make a difference to those products stictly sold in japan

Maybe they used the decision/order/injunction (or whatever its called) from the US to achieve the same actions in Japan?

[rnrswitch]

I assume that SDA, SugarCane et al. are stopping the "repro" making, because it wreaks of copyright infringement. They will probably still make jeans with "repro" cuts, but just not the name. Instead of calling the 47s the SC47s and marketing them as a "1947" cut they will still make the cut, but call it something else, like a vintage cut.

To me a company has more right to copyright functionality, ie the cut of the jean, than the labeling, such as the red tab and arcs. To produce a 1947 repro is more theft than just the arcs and tabs, because the company is stealing the overall purpose of the jeans and not just the image. I think these companies are just vouching for the American denim market.

I still think this is lame, but I am anxious to see what the Japanese companies can come up with. I never really like the asthetics of the tabs and arcuates, but more supported them for the big F-U to Levis that they represented. They said, "Hey levis, you guys slacked off and now we make better dungarees than you do. Neh neh neh neh. You can't catch us!" It is just like cars.

[poly800rock]

No it would not because the law suit was filed here. Japan might have various laws in place that prevent Levi's from litigating a trademark matter overseas.

but thats old news. thats the stuff with the arcs.

there is something else with this that no one else knows. it shouldn't be this easy for a company to say change it and worldwide everyone else follows. levi's doesn't own the copyright in japan. thats why they've been able to sell in japan. i'm kind of done talking about this because it makes no sense to me, and really none of us here except maybe kiya or gordon has any real idea what the fuck is going on here. whatever.