Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co.
Second Circuit (US)
1986
799 F.2d 867
Trademark • Unfair Competition
~7 min
```
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Lois v Levi, likelihood of confusion, pocket stitching
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: eight-factor test, summary judgment, unfair competition, jeans trade dress
Quick Summary
Levi’s jeans are known for a two-arc back-pocket stitch. Lois sold jeans with a very similar stitch. The court said buyers would likely think Lois’s jeans were from Levi or linked to Levi. On the likelihood of confusion factors, Levi won on summary judgment.
Issues
- Is there a likelihood of confusion between Levi’s stitch mark and Lois’s stitch design?
- Is summary judgment proper for trademark infringement and unfair competition?
Rules
- Likelihood of Confusion: Would ordinary buyers likely think the goods come from the same source?
- Eight Factors: Strength, similarity, proximity, bridging the gap, actual confusion, junior user’s good faith, quality, buyer sophistication.
- Summary Judgment: Proper where no genuine dispute of material fact and factors point one way.
Facts (Timeline)
Fame: Levi’s two-arc pocket stitch was a registered trademark with wide recognition.
Import: Lois imported jeans from Spain with a very similar stitch on rear pockets.
Customs: After Levi protested, Customs moved to block the imports; Lois sued for a declaratory judgment.
District Court: Granted summary judgment to Levi.
Appeal: Lois appealed to the Second Circuit.
Arguments
Appellant (Lois Sportswear)
- Differences (arc depth/placement) avoid confusion.
- Different market positioning reduces risk.
- Summary judgment is too harsh; facts need a trial.
Appellee (Levi Strauss & Co.)
- The stitch is iconic and strong; designs are essentially identical.
- Different targets can still mislead (brand extension belief).
- Record shows no real factual dispute → summary judgment proper.
Judgment
Held: Affirmed. Levi is entitled to summary judgment for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The stitches are essentially identical; buyers are likely to believe Lois’s jeans come from, or are linked with, Levi.
Ratio (Core Reason)
A strong mark plus a highly similar design on directly competing goods creates a clear risk of confusion. Selling to different segments can still confuse buyers who may assume a brand extension or subsidiary.
Why It Matters
- Protects non-word trademarks like stitching/trade dress.
- Shows summary judgment can resolve confusion cases on a clear record.
- Clarifies that market separation does not remove confusion risk.
Key Takeaways
- Eight factors guide confusion analysis.
- Minor design tweaks may be insufficient.
- Different targets can increase confusion (subsidiary belief).
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: S.I.M.P.L.E. ARC
- Strength of mark
- Identical look
- Market proximity
- Possible bridging
- Log of actual confusion
- Enthusiasm/good faith? (intent)
- ARC = quality & buyer Awareness, Reliability, Care
3-Step Hook
- Compare the marks side-by-side.
- Scan the eight factors.
- Ask: would buyers think it’s a Levi line?
IRAC Outline
| Issue | Do Lois’s pocket stitches cause a likelihood of confusion with Levi’s stitch mark? Is summary judgment proper? |
|---|---|
| Rule | Apply the eight-factor confusion test; if factors point clearly to confusion and facts are undisputed → summary judgment. |
| Application | Levi’s mark is strong; designs look essentially identical; proximity present; “bridging the gap” plausible; different markets can still mislead. |
| Conclusion | Confusion likely; judgment for Levi affirmed. |
Glossary
- Trade Dress
- Overall look/feel of a product that tells buyers the source.
- Bridging the Gap
- Owner’s plan to enter the other’s market, increasing future confusion.
- Buyer Sophistication
- How careful the buyers are; less care can raise confusion risk.
FAQs
Lois’s stitch design was likely to confuse buyers into thinking of Levi; summary judgment for Levi was proper.
Not necessarily. Buyers may think the product is a Levi sub-brand for that segment.
Strength of Levi’s mark and similarity of the stitches were pivotal; others supported confusion too.
Judgment in its favor on infringement and unfair competition; import/use of the confusing stitch could be restrained.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now