Summary
In Levi Strauss and Co v. Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction against the disputed back-pocket stitching designs used on KILLER and INTEGRITI jeans. The Court found, prima facie, that these designs were deceptively similar to designs prohibited under the parties' 2019 settlement concerning Levi Strauss's Arcuate Stitching Design Mark. However, it declined interim relief against the LAWMAN stitching design. The order stopped further manufacture and specified sales of the restrained products, while allowing retailers four months to sell stock already in their physical custody on the date of the order.
Pocket stitching and the 2019 settlement
Levi Strauss claimed trademark rights in its Arcuate Stitching Design Mark, used on the back pockets of jeans. The design comprises two double-stitched arcs curving inward from the sides of the pocket and converging around or below its centre. The Court recorded that the mark had been registered in India since 23 August 1979 and had been declared well-known in Levi Strauss & Co. v. Imperial Online Services Pvt. Ltd. in 2022.
Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited sells apparel under brands including KILLER, INTEGRITI and LAWMAN Pg3. Earlier disputes between the parties concerned Levi Strauss’s stitching mark and Kewal Kiran’s registered Vertebrae Design. They entered into a settlement agreement on 27 May 2019, recognising specified rights and identifying designs that could and could not be used.
Under the agreement, Kewal Kiran acknowledged Levi Strauss’s rights and undertook not to use identical or substantially similar stitching designs. Annexures B, F and G contained prohibited designs. Annexure C concerned permitted design registrations, and Annexures D and E identified stitching designs that Levi Strauss agreed not to challenge in the agreed territory of Asia and Africa, subject to the agreement’s terms.
The present proceedings arose from Levi Strauss’s allegations that subsequent KILLER and INTEGRITI designs fell within the prohibited categories. It also challenged the LAWMAN design, although the parties accepted that this particular design was outside the settlement. The Court decided an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Questions Before the Court
- Did the disputed KILLER stitching fall within the permitted designs or resemble the prohibited designs in the settlement?
- Did differences in the number, position or orientation of stitches take the INTEGRITI designs outside the agreed prohibition?
- Was the LAWMAN stitching deceptively similar to Levi Strauss’s mark so as to warrant an interim injunction?
- What interim restraints and directions concerning accounts and existing stock were appropriate?
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Levi Strauss
- The KILLER stitching resembled prohibited designs 4 and 5 in Annexure G, rather than the permitted designs in Annexures D and E. Its pointed arc and the meeting of the arcs near the pocket’s centre were material similarities.
- The INTEGRITI stitching corresponded to the prohibited designs in Annexure F. Changes in stitch count did not remove the similarity, and obtaining a later design registration breached the settlement obligations.
- The LAWMAN design incorporated Levi Strauss’s mark with a minor zigzag variation that did not sufficiently distinguish it.
- The challenged use amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, unfair competition and breach of the settlement, warranting an injunction.
Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited
- The KILLER stitching was a variation of the permitted designs. The agreement did not expressly prohibit moving the point at which the arcs met to the pocket’s centre.
- The INTEGRITI design differed in stitch count and orientation from the prohibited design. The agreement could not be expanded beyond its pictorial representations to impose additional restrictions on position or angle.
- The LAWMAN design was different, was not covered by the settlement, and enjoyed trademark registrations that had not been rectified or cancelled.
Court’s Analysis
Settlement Terms
The Court examined the settlement’s acknowledgements, undertakings and annexures together. Kewal Kiran had recognised Levi Strauss’s proprietary rights and agreed to discontinue specified similar designs. Levi Strauss, in turn, had accepted the use of other identified designs within the agreed terms. The inquiry therefore required a comparison of the challenged stitching with both the permitted and prohibited designs.
The Court referred to the earlier recognition of Levi Strauss’s mark as well-known. Its analysis of the present dispute, however, focused on the parties’ settlement and the particular stitching used under each brand.
KILLER Stitches
According to the Court, the arcs in the permitted Annexure D and E designs met to the left or right of the pocket’s centre. In prohibited designs 4 and 5 of Annexure G, the meeting point lay closer to the centre. Reading these depictions together, the Court formed the prima facie view that a meeting point at or near the centre had been excluded from the permitted category.
The Court also accepted that the pointed arc in the disputed KILLER design corresponded to a feature of the prohibited designs. The permitted designs had flatter curves. Kewal Kiran’s argument that its current stitching was merely a permissible variation therefore failed to persuade the Court.
Correspondence from 2023 supported this reading. Levi Strauss had objected to centrally meeting arcs, and Kewal Kiran had represented that the designs then challenged had been discontinued. The Court found Levi Strauss’s present position consistent with those earlier objections. It held that the pointed arcs meeting close to the centre made the challenged KILLER stitching prima facie near identical to the prohibited designs.
INTEGRITI Variations
The Court did not accept every aspect of Levi Strauss’s comparison. On the images before it, the Court agreed with Kewal Kiran that design 1 in Annexure F showed four stitch arcs, rather than two. It expressly treated that view as provisional and left the actual product to be produced at trial. However, design 2 in the same annexure showed two stitch arcs meeting at the centre.
The challenged INTEGRITI stitching appeared in two-, three- and four-stitch variations. On visual comparison, the Court found these prima facie deceptively similar to the prohibited designs. Kewal Kiran had acknowledged the deceptive similarity of the Annexure F designs in the settlement and could not avoid that obligation through small changes. The Court considered the microscopic differences insufficient to register in the consumer’s mind.
The Court also addressed the design registration arising from an application dated 9 September 2021, after the settlement. It recorded that Kewal Kiran had not relied on that registration in oral arguments or written submissions. In any event, given the prima facie similarity and breach of the agreement, the registration did not confer an enforceable right against Levi Strauss in these circumstances. The Court did not cancel the registration by this order.
LAWMAN Differences
The LAWMAN stitching was admittedly outside the settlement. Levi Strauss argued that a zigzag near the end of the left arc was only a minor addition to its mark. The Court was not persuaded, on a prima facie comparison, that the marks were deceptively similar. It observed that the zigzag resembled the stylised W in the LAWMAN Pg3 brand device.
The Court also noted that applications for the LAWMAN stitching marks had been filed in 2013 and the marks had since been registered. Levi Strauss had not explained why those designs were not discussed when the settlement was negotiated in 2019. Interim relief was therefore refused, with liberty to Levi Strauss to lead evidence at trial on deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion.
Interim Protection
For KILLER and INTEGRITI, the Court found a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in Levi Strauss’s favour. According to the Court, adopting deceptively similar stitching despite the prior acknowledgement of Levi Strauss’s rights prima facie reflected dishonest adoption. These were findings for interim relief; the suit remained pending.
Findings of the Court
- The challenged KILLER stitching was prima facie near identical to prohibited designs because of the pointed arcs and their meeting point close to the centre.
- The challenged INTEGRITI designs were prima facie deceptively similar to the Annexure F designs. Small variations in stitch count did not avoid the settlement obligations.
- The subsequent INTEGRITI design registration did not provide an enforceable right against Levi Strauss on the prima facie findings in this case.
- The Court was not satisfied, at this stage, that the LAWMAN stitching was deceptively similar. That issue remained open to evidence at trial.
- Interim protection was justified for the disputed KILLER and INTEGRITI stitching, subject to the specific directions on existing stock.
Court’s Order
The Court restrained Kewal Kiran from using the disputed KILLER and INTEGRITI stitching marks, or any other mark deceptively similar to Levi Strauss’s Arcuate Stitching Design Mark, during the proceedings. It expressly excluded the disputed LAWMAN design from the injunction.
Kewal Kiran was directed to stop further manufacture and direct sales, by itself or through distributors, of jeans bearing the restrained designs from 29 May 2026. Existing stock in its factory or warehouse, and with distributors, could not be sold onwards to retailers. Separate stock affidavits were required within four weeks, with disposal directions left to the roster Bench.
Retailers were permitted to sell stock already in their actual physical control and custody on the date of the order for four months from that date, and not thereafter. An affidavit identifying that stock was required within four weeks. Kewal Kiran was also directed to collate and file the retailers’ sales accounts.
Within four weeks, the defendant had to file complete, duly verified accounts concerning manufacture, sale, distribution and turnover of the challenged INTEGRITI products from 25 June 2024, and KILLER products from 14 February 2025, until the order date. The Court disposed of the interim application and listed the suit before the roster Bench on 10 July 2026.
Relevant Paragraphs
24. […] The submission that the impugned KILLER design mark is merely a variation of the permitted designs is untenable, as it overlooks the prohibition documented in Annexures G and B of the Agreement. A bare perusal of the prohibited designs shows that designs where the two arcs meet at, or close to, the centre of the pocket, were specifically excluded from the permissible category.
25. […] This Court on a comparison of the prohibited designs in Annexure G and permitted designs in Annexure D and E of the Agreement, finds that indeed there is difference in the arcs. The pointed arc has been prohibited at Annexure G of the Agreement.
33. […] The Defendant has, in the Settlement Agreement, acknowledged the deceptive similarity of the prohibited design enlisted in Annexure F of the Agreement and therefore, it cannot be permitted to adopt any variation of the prohibited designs by making small changes.
34. […] This Court finds merit in the submission of the Plaintiff that the microscopic difference between the two designs is irrelevant and would fail to register in the mind of the consumer.
35. […] In view of this Court’s 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. […]
40. 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 LAWMAN Pg3/ and appears to be an imitation of the same. […]
41. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to grant any interim injunction, at this stage, in respect of the impugned LAWMAN stitching design marks. However, the Plaintiff shall be at liberty to lead evidence during trial on the issues of deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion concerning the said mark.
42. […] Consequently, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if interim relief is denied.
43. In view of the prima facie findings returned hereinabove, an interim injunction is hereby granted in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the captioned application, restraining the Defendant from using the impugned stitching design marks pertaining to KILLER and INTEGRITI, or any other mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Arcuate Stitching Design Mark, during the pendency of the present proceedings. It is clarified that no injunction has been granted with respect to the impugned design mark pertaining to LAWMAN.
44. The Defendant is directed to file, within four [4] weeks, complete and duly verified books of accounts pertaining to the manufacture, sale, distribution and turnover of products bearing the impugned stitching design marks under the brands INTEGRITI and KILLER from the date of the issuance of the legal cease-and-desist notice on 25.06.2024 and 14.02.2025, respectively, till the date of this order.
45. The Defendant will, on and from the date of this order, stop manufacturing and directly selling by itself or through its distributors any further jeans bearing the impugned stitching design marks under the brands KILLER and INTEGRITI.
With respect to the existing stock available in the factory or warehouse of the Defendant and its distributors, no further sale shall be permissible to its retailers. […] Appropriate directions will be issued by the roster Bench for the disposal of the said existing stock.
46. The stock which is already available, as on date of this order, with the retailers will also be furnished by an appropriate affidavit, within four [4] weeks. This is in reference to the stocks which are in the actual physical control and custody of the retailer. The retailers shall be permitted to sell these goods within four months, from today, and not thereafter. The accounts of the sales of the products by the retailers will be collated and filed by the Defendant before the roster Bench.
Case Citation
Levi Strauss and Co v. Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited, CS(COMM) 414/2025, I.A. 11359/2025, High Court of Delhi, decided on 29 May 2026.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/185903947/
Visited on 23 September 2026. This post concerns the interim decision dated 29 May 2026.
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.