Levi Strauss & Co. v. Leba et al

On March 30, 2021, Levi Strauss & Co. (“LS&Co.” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Gregory S. Gilchrist of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against 13 Rattles, Inc. (“R13”) and Chris Leba (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking injunctive relief, damages and lost profits among other reliefs for systematically misappropriating LS&Co’s famous trademarks as symbols for their own products and identities as designers and producers of “classic” streetwear and casual apparel. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California with Judge Nathanael M. Cousins presiding.

LS&Co filed this action for the Defendant’s alleged infringement of its trademarks identified as Arcuate Stitching Design Trademark (the “Arcuate trademark”), Two Horse Design and Two Horse Label Design (the “Two Horse trademarks”) and Tab Device Trademark (the “Tab trademark”), which consists, in one configuration, of a textile marker or other material sewn into the pocket seams or one of the regular structural seams of the garment owned by them.

In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that “Defendants 13 Rattles, Inc. (“R13”) and Chris Leba began in approximately 2017 selling redesigned and modified LEVI’s® jeans with the Arcuate trademark on full display, supplemented by R13’s own branding. Twice, LS&Co. thought it had persuaded R13 and Mr. Leba to stop this infringement and passing off of LS&Co.’s products as its own. Now, R13 and Leba have yet again resumed these Arcuate trademark infringements. They also have designed and launched a brand – called Denimist® – whose entire identity is shrouded in markers and logos that mimic LS&Co’s Tab and Two Horse trademarks.”

It has been further alleged that “In addition to producing garments in its own factories, LS&Co. sometimes enters license agreements so that licensees may produce authorized products to LS&Co.’s specifications. Some or all of the Arcuate, Two Horse and Tab trademarks may be licensed for this purpose. In addition, LS&Co. often engages in collaborations with designers and other brands to produce a jointly created and sponsored item, including many designers and brands with a public image and brand equity that are highly similar to Defendants.”

There are five claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff. The first claim is for federal trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114-1117; Lanham Act § 32. The second claim relates to federal unfair competition wherein False Designation of Origin and False Description in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); Lanham Act § 43(a) has been claimed. The third claim is for Federal Dilution of Famous Marks in violation of Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); Lanham Act § 43(c), the fourth claim is for California Trademark Infringement and dilution Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 14200 et seq.; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14247 and the fifth claim is for California Unfair Competition in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the court to adjudge that the Defendants have infringed the Plaintiff’s trademarks as alleged and to require them to perform acts as requested in the complaint. The Plaintiff further requested the court to pass an order for injunctive relief and damages, loss of profits with prejudgment interest and cost of litigation amongst all other reliefs as claimed. 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.