SAN FRANCISCO – Levi Strauss & Co. is suing two companies for trademark infringement over their alleged use of its Arcuate stitching design.
Levi has used the Arcuate stitching trademark since 1873. It was first used on Levi's jeans and then it was used on other products, according to a complaint filed May 31 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Levi claims Dorsaz Inc. and Nanal Inc. began using the Arcuate stitching in their XELEMENT jeans using a stitching design called the Xelement Stitching Design, which is allegedly identical to the Arcuate stitching Levi's uses.
Levi stated in its suit that its products are known worldwide and its stitching has been used continuously since it was trademarked nearly 150 years ago. The Arcuate trademark is also recognized worldwide and exclusively owned by the plaintiff, the suit states.
The defendants allegedly have caused Levi to suffer damages through a loss of sales for its genuine clothing products and causing the public to associate Levi's with the defendants' brand of products.
The defendants' have sold a considerable amount of their products with the identical stitching, which allegedly has made them a substantial profit.
Levi claims the defendants violated both federal and California laws and believes the defendants' actions were intentional and unlawful. Levi noted several state and federal laws that allegedly have been violated by Dorsaz and Nanal, including several provisions of the Lanham Act and several provisions of the California Business and Professional Code.
The defendants' actions are likely to cause confusion among consumers due to the identical stitching, according to the suit.
Levi claims the defendants' actions will cause irreparable damage and will cause Levi to lose sales.
Levi is seeking for the court to rule that the trademark has been infringed on by the defendants and that the defendants have unfairly competed with Levi in violation of California law.
Levi is represented by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton in San Francisco.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case number 3:18-cv-03240