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