(Image from NY Times article cited in this post.) I could see some potential issue with the Karen Kane pocket or the Jones Apparel one, but those are off label mass brands that sell for less than Levis. The Jelessy, Von Dutch and Fossil examples are distinct, and those brands are positioned as more premium than Levis, not imitators trying to cash in on Levis brand equity

The past week has found me deep down the Google blog search rabbit hole weighing perspectives on the proposed Design Piracy Prohibition Act. Almost all who oppose the bill (myself included) voice a concern that the small, independent, struggling, up and coming designers this act purports to protect would in practice find themselves victim to a flurry of frivolous lawsuits in a climate of legal intimidation. Immediately my mind went to a January 2007 article in the NY Times, Levis Turns to Suing its Rivals, as a shining example of the type of activity sure to grow like a cancer on an already challenged industry if this bill were to become law.

So Levi’s is becoming a leader in a new arena: lawsuits. The company, once the undisputed king of denim and now a case study in missed opportunities, has emerged as the most litigious in the apparel industry when it comes to trademark infringement lawsuits, firing off nearly 100 against its competitors since 2001. That’s far more than General Motors, Walt Disney or Nike, according to an analysis by research firm Thomson West.

The legal scuffles offer a rare glimpse into the sharp-elbowed world of fashion, where the line between inspiration and imitation is razor thin. After all, clothing makers’ trade secrets are hung on store racks for all to see, and designs can be quickly copied with small changes to exploit a hot trend.

The lawsuits, which Levi’s says it is compelled to file to safeguard the defining features on its jeans, are not about the money — one settled for just $5,000 in damages. Instead, the company says, they are about removing copycats from stores. Nearly all the cases have settled out of court, with Levi’s smaller rivals agreeing to stop making the offending pants and to destroy unsold pairs.

Returing to 2009 for a moment, let’s take a look at professor and copyright attorney Kenneth J. Sanney’s post “Overlawyered or Just Over Simplistic on his blog, The Music Law and Copyright Blog, He accuses Kathleen Fasenella of Fashion Incubator of being ill informed and hyperbolic. While taking a patronizing tone against Fasenella - who has decades of experience in the nuts and bolts of garment production - for simplifying the law, he appears oblivious to the fact that while he might be an expert in the music industry, he clearly does not understand how he has oversimplified the inner workings of the fashion industry and the dynamic of trends and how they interface with culture.

He cites legal recourses available to designers if they are unfairly litigated against, but fails entirely to consider that even with said resources in place, designers would still be stuck in spending countless hours of time and energy dealing with this hassle in the first place. Sanney then goes on to ask the question:

Furthermore, in the current business environment how many large corporations are looking to task resources (both time and money) litigating against small businesses and individuals unless they have a serious claim that pasts muster under the most strict cost/benefit analysis?

LOTS OF THEM.  Think this is lame? Sign the petition here.

Let’s return to the Levis situation to try and determine if they are indeed protecting their trademark from imposters trying to cash in on their brand equity, or simply harassing the designers who are successful because they are offering desirable alternatives to the Levis trademark that had become diluted to the point of being unfashionable. It pretty much boils down the following quote by Steven Shaul:

“It was an original design,” he said. “Why would I use Levi’s stitching? If my jeans sell for $200, I would not knock off $40 jeans from Levi’s.”

Precisely. Shaul’s customer might very well be paying for the status of the logo on the back pocket, but they are paying for something to distinguish themselves from the masses in Levis. And Levis has the right to sue Shaul for this? Apparently so…

Back in the 1980s - when Levis were still cool and Americans were offered big bucks for the jeans off their butts when traveling overseas - there were counterfeiters producing jeans that people bought because they could pass them off as Levis. Just like ladies heading to Canal Street today looking for the guys that will take them into a back alley and sell the fake Louis Vuittons that they are trying to pass of as real. And in that circumstance a company should have the right to pursue legal action. That appears to be the sort of activity that the law was designed to protect against, not declining companies out of touch with the current zeitgeist intimidating upstart designers creating distinctive and highly marketed as such new brands that people are paying four times as much for because they are not like the big mass brands…with but as Mr. Sanney will be quick to point out, I’m not a lawyer, so what do I know.

From the blog, Seattle Trademark Lawyer: "Not identical or nearly identical, so no dilution: Levi’s “Arcuate” and Abercrombie’s “Ruehl” stitch designs "

As noted in the Times quote at the beginning of this post, the vast majority of these 100+ lawsuits were settled out of court by designers unwilling or unable to take on Levis, but what happened when Levis picked on someone their own size?

The image on the right is taken from attorney Michael Atkins blog, Seattle Trademark Lawyer, in a post titled Court Finds Abercrombie’s Stitch Design Does Not Dilute Levi’s Stitch Design

In summary, the court found that the subject marks (depicted above) were not “identical or nearly identical,” so Levi could not prevail on its dilution claim.

The court found: “The advisory jury found that [Abercrombie’s] Ruehl design and [Levi’s] Arcuate mark were not identical or nearly identical. In order to be nearly identical, the two marks must be similar enough that a significant segment of the target group of customers sees the two marks as essentially the same. ‘In the dilution context, the ‘similarity of the marks’ test is more stringent than in the infringement context.’

I couldn’t tell whether or not Atkins firm represented one of the parties in this case. I am, however, curious as to what would have happened to the smaller designers Levis pursued if they’d had the resources to defend themselves as Abercrombie did. I also hope that this case provides the precedent necessary for indies to find attorneys willing to come to their defense without large retainers up front.

Some more notable excerpts from the Times:

But the privately held Levi’s, whose founder sewed together the first pair of jeans in 1873, has been unable to exploit the latest $200-a-pair denim craze — and now claims scores of smaller competitors are riding high because of what it created. When consumers’ tastes shifted toward designer jeans that were bejeweled, torn and frayed, Levi’s was still selling basic $30 pairs at K-Mart.

…The company’s team of denim detectives — there are 40 across the world, scouring boutiques and department stores — has spotted what they considered offending stitches on jeans from the biggest names in the clothing business: Guess, Zegna, Esprit, Lucky Brand and Zumiez, to name a few.

Does anyone else wonder what kind of shape Levis would be in if it had hired a few less detectives and some more savvy denim designers?

Executives at Levi’s concede they missed important fashion trends as the denim industry ballooned over the last several years, but they deny the lawsuits are connected to any downturn in their business.

Instead, they say they are simply trying to preserve their intellectual property. Like pharmaceutical companies that sue generic drug makers over their patents or technology companies that duke it out over who owns the right to microchip designs, Levi’s says it is trying to protect its most valuable asset, its trademarks.

…“The value of the brand will become diluted if the marketplace becomes crowded with products with similar tabs or stitching to ours,” said Thomas M. Onda, a global intellectual property lawyer for Levi’s.

But what Levis seems unwilling to admit is that their brand was already diluted by overdistribution of their own doing! Their failure to innovate and keep up with shifting demands of high end consumers help create the vacuum which these niche indies are filling. Hadley Freeman of the Guardian UK weighed in six months after the NY Times in Story of the Blues:

The question is what the value of Levi’s trademark is today. There is no doubt that Levi’s has influenced the legions of denim brands that have sprouted up more recently, if only because it established the original template for how a pair of jeans looks.

And back to the Times article:

“They missed the boat,” said Tonny Sorensen, chief executive of Von Dutch Originals, a six-year-old denim and clothing manufacturer sued by Levi’s six months ago for allegedly borrowing the company’s double arcs for a back-pocket design. “Now they want to make a lot of noise and scare people away.”

…“The emergence of all this denim sold at astronomical prices simply passed them by,” said David Wolfe, creative director of the Doneger Group, a fashion consulting firm in Manhattan. “They should have jumped on the bandwagon but they did not even seem to see the bandwagon rolling, which amazed everyone in the fashion industry.”

And to add a personal - but relevant - twist, when the Times piece came out in 2007 it prompted a heated discussion (and subsequent cold shoulders) between myself and an old friend from high school who currently makes her living as a trademark lawyer in the fashion industry. (This proposed law addresses the shape and design elements of a garment, which are not yet protected, but the prints on fabric already are and cases related to that are what she pursues. And for the record, that, in the humble opinion of a former designer and cultural critic, is a valid and completely different matter.)

When I brought the Levis matter to her attention and expressed indignation that Levis was using the law to bully upstarts, not actual counterfeiters she agreed… but defended Levis nonetheless saying that it was a smart business strategy on their part if this gave them a competitive edge. She also supported the DPPA in its first iteration because… it would mean more business for her. While there do exist fashionista lawyers highly tuned into the nuances of design detail that mark labels and trends, this particular lawyer falls into the ‘it’s stupid to spend money on clothes when you already have them in your closet’ category. Upon pointing this out I was derided for my attempt to waste her free time in this pro bono discussion because she was a LAWYER (caps hers) and I was not. My graduate studies in visual culture and the dissemination of trends were of no interest to her. The thought of her - and the cadre of her counterparts - taking on small designers and arguing the completely subjective term ’substantially similar’ to a jury of John Q. Public over the details of sleeve shape and cut makes me cringe with despair.

I wish there could be a way of protecting even the big named designers from having their garments purchased by Forever 21 employees and hand carried in shopping bags over to Chinese factories without the collateral damage to the small upstarts by predatory legal teams, but I don’t see how with our current system that could ever be the case.

Stay tuned for further analysis and excerpts from experts….