Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc., v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1986)
FACTS:
The Defendant, Levi Strauss & Co., was an American apparel company well-known worldwide for their denim trousers with a distinctive back-pocket stitching design of two intersecting arcs on both pockets.
The Plaintiff, Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc., imported pants made in Spain with rear pockets stitched in a manner that was very identical to Levi’s registered-trademark stitching.
The United States Customs Bureau (bureau) initially prohibited Lois from importing these jeans after Levi filed a protest alleging that they violated Levi’s trademark rights. However, the bureau then decided to enforce a new importation ban. Lois brought an action in the district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that its use of the stitching pattern did not constitute infringement of Levi’s registered trademark.
The District court granted summary judgment in favour of Levi, to which Lois appealed.
RULE:
The principle of “likelihood of confusion” refers to the likelihood that consumers would confuse and mistake your mark for the mark of another company.
There are eight factors used in determining the likelihood of confusion as to the source of goods:
The strength of the mark
The degree of similarity of the marks
The proximity of the products
Bridging the gap
If the trademark owner intends to enter the alleged infringer’s market, it would lead to future confusion.
Actual confusion the junior user’s good faith in adopting the mark
the quality of the respective goods
the sophistication of relevant buyers
ISSUE:
Is there a likelihood of confusion between the parties’ jeans?
Whether summary judgment for the trademark owner is appropriate on claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition?
HELD:
The Court held that Levi Strauss & Company is entitled to summary judgement for trademark infringement and unfair competition against Lois Sportswear.
The Court considered the 8 factors used in determining the likelihood of confusion as to the source of goods.
Targeting different markets actually makes it more confusing to consumers, as they may think that the Appellant is a subsidiary formed for that purpose by Appellee.
The Court held that the two stitching patterns are “essentially identical.” The only difference is that Appellants’ arcs extend ¾ inch lower at the intersection.
The Court concluded that consumers are likely to mistakenly associate Appellant’s jeans with Appellee.