Levi’s is Suing Quiet Luxury Leader Brunello Cucinelli Over “Infringing” Tabs

The latest company to land on the receiving end of a trademark lawsuit lodged by Levi’s? Brunello Cucinelli. According to the complaint that it filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on January 23, Levi Strauss & Co. claims that Italian luxury brand is infringing – and diluting – the “famous” tab trademark that appears on almost all of the “millions of pairs of jeans” and other products that Levi’s sells every year and that is “recognized around the world and throughout the United States by consumers as signifying authentic, high-quality LEVI’S® garments.”

In its complaint, Levi’s claims that it began using its now-very-well-known tab trademark back in 1936, making it one of “the oldest and most well-respected apparel trademarks in the world.” Fast forward to 2024 and San Francisco-based Levi’s states that it maintains an arsenal of trademark rights in (and registrations for) the tab mark, including for tabs that “sometimes bear the famous LEVI’S® trademark, and sometimes bear only the ® symbol.” Brunello Cucinelli has run afoul of those rights, per Levi’s, by manufacturing, marketing, and selling “substantial quantities” of garments bearing a design that is “highly similar” to its tab trademark and that is likely to confuse consumers about the source of the Brunello Cucinelli products” and/or whether a relationship exists between the parties. 

We have seen no shortage of Levi’s-initiated complaints, in which the denim-maker has looked to enforce its tab mark; Levi’s has garnered itself quite a reputation for the sheer number of tab-specific infringement and dilution cases it has waged against other apparel brands over the years, most of which have settled out of court. At the same time, Levi’s aggressive enforcement of the fabric tab design has made it no stranger to arguments from critics that its trademark claims have – on more than one occasion – gone too far; British luxury brand Barbour, for one, called Levi’s “one of the world’s biggest trademark bullies” (and “one of the most litigious apparel companies in the U.S., if not the world”) in the subsequently-dismissed declaratory judgment suit it filed against Levi’s back in 2018. 

Even against that background of lawsuits, Levi’s latest complaint is interesting, as it raises a few compelling questions. Primarily, I wonder if the Brunello Cucinelli “tab” does, in fact, act as a trademark, a necessary element for Levi’s to prevail on its trademark claims.

Delving into Brunello Cucinelli’s alleged infringement, Levi’s claims that the luxury brand is using the little accent as an indicator of source. Specifically, Levi’s says that the quiet luxury leader, whose revenues reached €1.14 billion last year, “identifies many of [its] products by referring to its use of the Brunello Cucinelli tab as the distinctive identifier of [Brunello Cucinelli] as the source.” In other words, Levi’s (unsurprisingly) contends that Brunello Cucinelli is using a “nearly-identical copy of [the Levi’s] tab trademark as [its] own trademark.” Brunello Cucinelli, for example, “brands and markets” one of its products as the “Authentic denim baggy trousers with shiny tab,” per Levi’s, complete with a sparkly little accent attached to the rear pocket. 

Referencing the Brunello Cucinelli tab, Levi’s maintains that many of Brunello Cucinelli’s product descriptions for pants, shirts, etc. note that “a shiny monili insert on the edge of the rear pocket completes this piece with a precious sparkling detail in true Brunello Cucinelli style.” This is the interesting part because Brunello Cucinelli’s mention of the “tab” in the product description seems to suggest that the “tab” might serve a decorative or ornamental function more than a source-indicating one. This is significant because if the commercial impression of a mark is purely ornamental or decorative, then it does not function as a trademark. 

Levi’s points to other language used by Brunello Cucinelli (to describe a monili necklace) in the complaint. In one product description for a “monili” necklace, Brunello Cucinellu states that “monili” is “the iconic earmark of the Brunello Cucinelli collections.” This language may be more on point in terms of Levi’s effort to show that Brunello Cucinelli is, in its own words, characterizing “monili” as an indicator of source. But still, there may be an argument to be made on the issue of functionality. 

As for the appearance of the tab, itself, another question that comes to mind is whether Levi’s rights in its tab mark are broad enough to extend to an embellished accent that does not necessarily look a whole lot like its own tabs. I am not sure it is a huge stretch to say that the allegedly infringing tab that appears on Brunello Cucinelli wares does not really look like the Levi’s tab. Unlike the Levi’s mark, which consists of a rectangular piece of folded fabric, the “infringing” Brunello Cucinelli tab takes the form of what appears to be a shiny, beaded accent. Granted, the shape of the two companies’ tabs is roughly the same (rectangular), as is the overall placement (attached to the side of one of the back pockets on pants and the side of a front pocket on various shirts). 

Still yet, another interesting question posed by the newly-filed case centers on the critical element of consumer confusion: Are consumers likely to be confused about Brunello Cucinelli’s use of the monili tabs – or more precisely, are they going to mistakenly think that based on the appearance of the tabs on Brunello Cucinelli jeans and shirts that Levi’s is in some way connected to and/or affiliated with these wares? Beyond the notable visual differences between the two companies’ tabs, it feels like a reach (to me) to assume that consumers that are in the market for $2,000-plus cashmere sweaters, $6,000 blazers, and denim trousers that range in price from $950 to $1,995 are going to believe that these Brunello Cucinelli wares are tied to Levi’s, which is best known for offering up mass-market denim. These are, after all, like to be sophisticated consumers, a factor that would weigh in Brunello Cucinelli’s favor in a likelihood of confusion analysis. 

This skepticism remains intact (in my mind, at least) even if Levi’s has a history of collaborating with “some of the most well-respected designers and fashion houses in the industry,” like Valentino, Kenzo, and Miu Miu, as it states in the complaint.

Given the difference in appearance of the two companies’ tabs and the fact that these two brands do not really exist in the same segment of the apparel/accessories market, are not advertising themselves to the same consumers (Brunello Cucinelli is a known favorite of billionaires, for instance), are not sharing a notable number of stockists, etc., it could be argued (by counsel for Brunello Cucinelli) that consumers are not very likely to be confused. 

Either way, Levi’s sets out claims of trademark infringement and dilution, and unfair competition, and is seeking injunctive relief to bar Brunello Cucinelli from marketing and selling apparel bearing the “looklike” tabs, as well as monetary damages. 

A representative for Brunello Cucinelli was not immediately available for comment.

The case is Levi Strauss & Co. v. Brunello Cucinelli USA, Inc., et al., 4:24-cv-00399.