Browse all

Levi’s sued Brunello Cucinelli

Over the trademark back pocket tab of the jeans

Levi’s sued Brunello Cucinelli Over the trademark back pocket tab of the jeans

In the fashion industry, defending one's trademarks is a fierce endeavor, especially when a brand is so popular, widely spread, and considered "classic" that its small distinctive signs are taken for granted. This is the case with Levi’s, whose jeans have set the standard worldwide. The brand has a habit of protecting its registered trademarks from any attempt, no matter how remote, at imitation. The latest case involves Brunello Cucinelli being sued, accused of replicating on the back pocket of their jeans the rectangular label typical of Levi’s. The risks mentioned in the motion are the usual ones: confusing consumers, damaging sales, and causing "an irreparable and incalculable harm" to Levi’s reputation. But does the accusation hold? We are not legal experts, but we visited Brunello Cucinelli's website to understand which jeans are in question. The disputed label (the only one among the products currently on sale) does not appear on men's jeans, but it does appear on several women's models. What leaves us perplexed, however, is that not only is Brunello Cucinelli's label beige and made of shimmering fabric, but it is also located on the opposite side to where Levi’s places its label. It's worth noting that the contentious label is not applied to all jeans but only to a good portion of the models, while others either lack it or have a different, longer label displaying the brand name.

Levi’s sued Brunello Cucinelli Over the trademark back pocket tab of the jeans | Image 485268
Levi’s sued Brunello Cucinelli Over the trademark back pocket tab of the jeans | Image 485269
Levi’s sued Brunello Cucinelli Over the trademark back pocket tab of the jeans | Image 485270
Levi’s sued Brunello Cucinelli Over the trademark back pocket tab of the jeans | Image 485271

This situation is not new for Levi’s: in September 2023, a similar case involved Coperni, while in November 2018, even Saint Laurent faced a similar situation. In both cases, the dynamics were the same, up to the repetition of the formula "irreparable and incalculable harm" in the complaint filed. So, one might argue that Levi’s accusations are unfounded: how can one confuse a luxury boutique-sold, several-hundred-euro denim with a Levi’s that costs just over a hundred? In the case filed years ago against Saint Laurent, Levi’s mentioned the urgency to defend the trademark, namely "the ability of its registered label to differentiate Levi's products from others." The issue, therefore, does not concern specific sales or customers choosing one brand over another but involves the competitive advantage of a brand operating in today's vast and boundless denim market, choosing to stand out through many small signs that, in this case, have been registered since the 1930s.