In an application filed in a suit before the Delhi High Court by Levi Strauss and Co (Levi) under Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to seek an interim injunction against Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited (Kewal Kiran), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora granted an interim injunction and restrained Kewal Kiran from using the impugned stitching marks for the brands KILLER and INTEGRITI.
Levi was the registered proprietor of the Arcuate Stitching Design Mark, which was used on the back pockets of its denim jeans since 1873, with registrations in India since 1979. It was contended that the stitching design mark was a distinctive, non-functional, and source-identifying feature of its denim jeans, which had two double-stitched arcs emerging from the midpoints of the vertical edges of the back pocket. Levi argued that the mark had been in use for over 150 years and that it had acquired substantial goodwill worldwide, being recognised as a well-known mark under Section 2(1) (zg) and Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by a judgment dated 24-03-2022.
Kewal Kiran sold apparel, including denim jeans, under its brands – INTEGRITI, KILLER, and LAWMAN. Levi alleged that it was using stitching designs on the back pockets of its jeans, which were deceptively similar to the Arcuate Stitching Design Mark. Levi asserted that it came to know of the usage of the impugned stitch in 2014 and sent a cease-and-desist letter to Kewal Kiran on 27-10-2015, but no response was received.
In May 2017, Levi filed a trademark infringement suit before the District Court, Saket, to restrain Kewal Kiran from using the stitching marks, but the suit was returned for want of territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, Kewal Kiran filed a design infringement suit against Levi alleging the infringement of its ‘vertebrae design’, and the Supreme Court stayed the proceedings by an order dated 10-05-2019. Thereafter, the parties entered into a settlement dated 27-05-2019 to resolve their disputes.
By the settlement agreement, Kewal Kiran acknowledged Levi’s right in the Arcuate Stitching Design Mark and agreed not to use the stitching design. Levi agreed not to object to Kewal Kiran’s use of and/or any registrations for registering certain stitching designs in Asia and Africa. Kewal Kiran also agreed to cancel design registrations against which Levi had filed cancellation petitions.
In June 2024, Levi found that Kewal Kiran was using the impugned stitch on its jeans bearing the brand INTEGRITI, which, as per Levi, was impermissible as per the settlement agreement. Subsequently, Levi issued a cease-and-desist notice dated 25-06-2024 to which Kewal Kiran gave a holding reply, seeking time to respond, but failed to furnish the same. Kewal Kiran was also selling jeans with the impugned KILLER stitching design mark, which was nearly identical to the designs acknowledged by Kewal Kiran as infringing. When Kewal Kiran refused to accept that the stitching marks were similar, Levi issued a rebuttal letter dated 17-03-2025, demanding that Kewal Kiran cease and desist from using the marks, but they reiterated their denial of the allegations.
The Court perused the settlement agreement and noted Kewal Kiran’s acknowledgement that the designs were substantially similar and that he would discontinue using the same. It was also noted that Levi agreed to Kewal Kiran’s use of design registrations in Annexure C of the agreement and to withdraw its cancellation petitions, provided Kewal Kiran agreed to discontinue using the designs in Annexure G of the agreement. It was noted that Kewal Kiran contended that the impugned KILLER stitching marks were in conformity with the permissible designs, whereas Levi contended that the stitch marks corresponded to the prohibited designs.
The Court referred to the grid design and found that the two arcs did not meet at the centre of the pocket in either of the designs. It was said that Kewal Kiran’s contention that the impugned KILLER stitch mark was as per Annexure D and E of the agreement did not persuade the Court, and that designs where two arcs met at, or close to, the centre of the pocket, were specifically excluded from the permissible category. The Court also perused the correspondence exchanged between the parties in 2023, as well as the notice dated 20-04-2023. It was noted that Kewal Kiran represented the stitching designs objected to by Levi to have been discontinued, which brought a quietus to the matter in 2023.
The Court opined that Levi’s claims in this suit were consistent with its stand and that Levi had made out a prima facie case for injuncting Kewal Kiran from using the impugned KILLER stitching design for the jeans, as the arcs were pointed and met close to the centre of the pocket, making the impugned design nearly identical to the prohibited designs.
Further, the Court noted Kewal Kiran’s assertion that the impugned INTEGRITI stitching marks were not covered under the agreement and that there was no agreement between the parties that Kewal Kiran could not adopt designs which met at the centre, or with respect to the angle, and orientation of the stitches. The Court did not find merit in Levi’s submission that the image depicted two arcs, but gave both parties liberty to produce the actual product during trial to substantiate their plea. The Court opined that the impugned INTEGRITI stitching designs were also deceptively similar to the prohibited designs and that Kewal Kiran could not be permitted to adopt any variation of the prohibited designs.
Regarding the impugned LAWMAN stitching design, the Court noted that the zig-zag pattern towards the end of the left arc was similar to the stylised ‘W’ in the brand name LAWMAN and found itself unable to agree that the marks were deceptively similar. Hence, the Court was not inclined to grant any interim injunction in respect of the impugned LAWMAN stitching design marks, but granted liberty to Levi to lead evidence for the same during the trial.
The Court stated that Kewal Kiran’s adoption of deceptively similar stitching designs for INTEGRITI and KILLER, despite prior acknowledgement of Levi’s proprietary rights, prima facie reflected dishonest adoption and that irreparable injury would be caused to Levi if interim relief is denied. Thus, an interim injunction was granted to restrain Kewal Kiran from using the impugned stitch marks for KILLER and INTEGIRITI or any other deceptively similar mark, but clarified that no injunction was granted for the design mark related to LAWMAN.
Kewal Kiran was directed to file, within four weeks, books of accounts and turnover of products bearing stitching marks under brands INTEGRITI and KILLER from the issuance of the legal cease-and-desist notice on 25-06-2024 and 14-02-2025 till present date. They were also ordered to stop manufacturing and selling any further jeans bearing the impugned stitch marks. The Court directed Kewal Kiran to file an affidavit within four weeks with details of the existing stock of jeans and another affidavit for the stocks available with the distributor. The stocks available with retailers as on the date of order were also directed to be furnished by an affidavit.
Lastly, the Court permitted the retailers to sell the stock in their physical control and custody within four months, and the accounts of sales were directed to be filed. Thus, the petition was disposed of, and the suit has now been listed on 10-07-2026.