Two Arcs Meeting At Centre Of Back Pocket Prima Facie Infringe Levi’s Arcuate Stitching Mark; Delhi High Court Restrains Killer, Integriti Jeans
The Court, however, declined interim injunction against LAWMAN Pg3, finding it prima facie distinguishable from Levi’s Arcuate mark.
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Levi Strauss & Co. in its trademark and contractual dispute against Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited, restraining the latter from using disputed pocket stitching designs on jeans sold under its KILLER and INTEGRITI brands. The Court held that stitching patterns in which two arcs meet at or near the centre of the back pocket were prima facie deceptively similar to Levi’s well-known “Arcuate Stitching Design Mark” and appeared to violate the parties’ 2019 settlement agreement.
The Bench noted that Levi’s Arcuate Stitching Design, used on denim products for over 150 years and registered in India since 1979, had already been declared a well-known trademark by the Delhi High Court on March 24, 2022. The Court observed that under the 2019 settlement, Kewal Kiran had expressly acknowledged Levi’s superior rights over the Arcuate mark and undertaken not to use stitching designs identical or substantially similar to it.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed, “…made out a prima facie case for injuncting the Defendant from using the impugned KILLER stitching design mark for the jeans, as the arcs are pointed and meet close to the centre of the pocket which makes the impugned design near identical to the prohibited designs in Annexure G. The recitals and Clauses of the Agreement evidence that the Defendant acknowledged that the prohibited designs are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered mark Arcuate Stitching Design Mark and that it will not use the said designs in the future. The Plaintiff has therefore made out a prima facie case in its favour”.
“…the microscopic difference between the two designs is irrelevant and would fail to register in the mind of the consumer… prima facie finding that the impugned design is deceptively similar to the prohibited design, the Defendant cannot claim any enforceable right against the Plaintiff on the basis of such registration”, the Bench noted further.
Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall appeared for the plaintiff and Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak appeared for the defendant.
Pertinently, in the 2019 settlement, Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited expressly recognised Levi Strauss & Co.’s rights over the Arcuate Stitching Design and undertook to avoid specified stitching patterns considered deceptively similar.
Examining the rival designs, the Court found prima facie merit in Levi’s contention that the impugned KILLER pocket stitching closely resembled designs specifically prohibited under Annexure G of the settlement. The Bench observed that while the designs permitted under the agreement had a left or right indent, the prohibited category consistently involved two arcs meeting at or close to the centre of the pocket. The Court also noted that Levi had consistently objected to such centre-meeting designs in earlier correspondence exchanged between the parties.
“…The prohibited design in image no. 1 at Annexure F is closely similar to the design of the two-stitch meeting at the centre represented in this registration. Image no. 1 has a closely similar design in four stitches. In the opinion of this Court, the difference in the number of stitches would not make it permissible for the Defendant to use this design as it is prima facie in violation of the Agreement”, the Bench said.
A similar finding was returned regarding Kewal Kiran’s INTEGRITI jeans, where the Court held that the impugned INTEGRITI stitching designs were prima facie deceptively similar to designs barred under Annexure F of the settlement, and that minor variations in the number of stitches or angle could not dilute the earlier undertaking given by the defendant.
However, the Court declined interim relief against Kewal Kiran’s LAWMAN Pg3 stitching design, observing that it was not part of the settlement agreement and was, at the interim stage, visually distinguishable from Levi’s mark.
“This Court, on a prima facie comparison of the two marks is unable to agree with the Plaintiff that the two marks are deceptively similar. This Court notes that the zig-zag pattern towards the end of the left arc is similar to the stylised ‘W’ in the Defendant’s brand name device and appears to be an imitation of the same. This Court also notes that the LAWMAN stitching design marks were applied for by the Defendant in 2013 and have since been registered. The Plaintiff has been unable to explain as to how these designs were not made a subject matter of discussion when the Settlement Agreement was negotiated and executed between the parties in 2019”, the Bench said.
Accordingly, the Court restrained further manufacture and direct sale of jeans bearing the impugned KILLER and INTEGRITI stitching designs, directed Kewal Kiran to disclose accounts relating to those products, and permitted retailers to clear existing stock within four months.
Cause Title: Levi Strauss And Co v. Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4894)
Appearances:
Plaintiff: Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv., Urfee Roomi, Janaki Arun, Jaskaran Singh, Annanya Mehan and Arpit Singhal, Advocates.
Defendant: J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv., Avinash and Soumya Gulati, Advocates.