Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc., v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1986)

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.