Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitinjunctionsummary judgmenttrademark
injunctionsummary judgmenttrademarkappellantappellee

Related Cases

In re Dresser Industries, Inc., 972 F.2d 540, 1992-2 Trade Cases P 69,952
View Case »
Manganella v. Keyes, 613 F.Supp. 795
View Case »
In re Sather, 3 P.3d 403, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 2664
View Case »
Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59, 34 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1406, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,387
View Case »
S.E.C. v. U.S. Environmental, Inc., 155 F.3d 107, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 90,648
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867, 55 USLW 2180, 230 U.S.P.Q. 831

Facts

Levi Strauss & Co. is a well-known clothing manufacturer that has used a distinct back pocket stitching pattern on its jeans since 1873, which has become synonymous with its brand. Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. and Textiles Y Confecciones Europeas, S.A. imported jeans that featured a stitching pattern nearly identical to Levi's trademark. Despite the Customs Service initially banning the importation of these jeans due to trademark infringement claims, the ban was lifted temporarily before being reinstated. Levi filed a lawsuit against Lois, claiming trademark infringement and unfair competition, leading to a summary judgment in favor of Levi.

Appellee is a world famous clothing manufacturer. One of its most popular products is a line of casual pants known as Levi Jeans. Appellee began manufacturing its denim jeans in the 1850s. Each pair of jeans contains numerous identifying features. One such feature is a distinct back pocket stitching pattern.

Issue

Whether summary judgment for the trademark owner is appropriate on claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition when the trademark owner has shown that a rival jeans manufacturer is using a similar back pocket stitching pattern.

Whether summary judgment for the trademark owner is appropriate on claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition when the trademark owner has shown that a rival jeans manufacturer is using a similar back pocket stitching pattern.

Rule

A prima facie case of trademark infringement or unfair competition is established by showing that the use of a trademark by another is likely to confuse consumers as to the source of the product, as outlined in the Lanham Act.

A prima facie case is made out by showing the use of one's trademark by another in a way that is likely to confuse consumers as to the source of the product.

Analysis

The court applied the Polaroid factors to assess the likelihood of confusion, concluding that the strength of Levi's trademark, the similarity of the stitching patterns, and the proximity of the products all favored Levi. The court noted that the stitching pattern was not only registered and incontestable but also had a strong secondary meaning among consumers. The court found that the nearly identical stitching patterns were likely to cause confusion regarding the source of the jeans, especially in a post-sale context.

The evidence is undisputed that appellants and appellee manufacture and sell a similar product. While stratifying the jeans market with various styles and grades seems to be the current rage, there can be no dispute that the parties before us compete to sell their jeans to the public.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's decision, granting Levi Strauss & Co. an injunction against Lois Sportswear and its competitor from using the similar stitching pattern, as it was likely to cause consumer confusion.

We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee.

Who won?

Levi Strauss & Co. prevailed in the case because the court found that their trademark had a strong secondary meaning and that the similar stitching pattern used by Lois Sportswear was likely to confuse consumers regarding the source of the jeans.

Levi Strauss & Co. is entitled to an injunction prohibiting competitor from using back pocket stitching pattern similar to one in which manufacturer held registered and uncontested trademark.

You must be