## Facts

- Levi Strauss & Co. sold jeans under the “501” mark for decades and held a federal registration for “501” for jeans; it also used and registered other three-digit numerical marks for jeans and claimed a “family” of such marks.
- Jordache Enterprises, Inc. sought to register “Jordache 101,” “Jordache Basics 101,” and related marks for jeans; Levi opposed the applications in PTO proceedings.
- Jordache later pursued registration for “Jordache Basics 101” with a star-and-wing design; Levi again opposed.
- Jordache manufactured and distributed a limited run of men’s jeans (about 600 dozen) using “Jordache Basics 101” (with wings and stars) during roughly late 1990 to early 1991, primarily through smaller retailers.
- Levi contended Jordache selected “101” to benefit from the goodwill and advertising value of Levi’s “501” and its numeric-mark system; Jordache denied bad faith and pointed to differences in branding and presentation.

## Issues

1. Whether “Jordache Basics 101” was likely to cause consumer confusion with Levi’s “501” under Lanham Act § 32(1), Lanham Act § 43(a), and related common-law unfair competition.
2. Whether Jordache’s use of the mark constituted false designation of origin or false description under Lanham Act § 43(a).
3. Whether Jordache’s use diluted Levi’s “501” (and alleged family of three-digit marks) under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 368-d.
4. Whether Jordache misappropriated Levi’s goodwill and advertising value under New York unfair competition law.
5. Whether either party was entitled to summary judgment, and whether Levi was entitled to a preliminary injunction.

## Decision

- Jordache’s motion for summary judgment was denied.
- Jordache’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Levi’s counterclaims was denied.
- Levi’s cross-motion for summary judgment on its counterclaims was denied.
- Levi’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied.
- The court held that material factual disputes—especially on likelihood of confusion, dilution, and intent—required trial.

## Legal Principles

- Likelihood of confusion in the Second Circuit is assessed under the Polaroid factors, including mark strength, similarity, product proximity, actual confusion, intent, quality, and buyer sophistication; disputed facts on key factors generally bar summary judgment.
- A strong, well-known mark may support infringement and false designation claims, but where evidence on confusion-related factors is contested, liability cannot be resolved as a matter of law.
- New York dilution claims under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 368-d require a distinctive mark and a showing of dilution (including blurring); consumer perception and contextual marketplace evidence often present fact questions.
- New York unfair competition/misappropriation commonly turns on bad-faith conduct and appropriation of another’s goodwill; disputed intent and marketplace behavior typically preclude summary judgment.
- Preliminary injunctive relief requires irreparable harm and a sufficient showing on the merits (or serious merits questions plus a favorable hardships balance); delay in seeking an injunction can rebut a claim of immediate irreparable harm.

## Conclusion

The court left all substantive trademark, dilution, and unfair-competition claims for trial, concluding that the record contained genuine factual disputes about confusion, dilution, and Jordache’s intent, and it denied Levi preliminary injunctive relief because irreparable harm was not established and the merits could not be resolved on the existing record.


Jordache Enters., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 841 F. Supp. 506 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)