Bad News for anyone who wants some Japanese Repos

[raley]

Originally Posted by Saucemaster

I can't speak for anyone else, but for my part, I'm not pissed that Levi's decided to defend their trademark; I'm pissed at how they're defending it. It appears that they purposefully waited until most of the Japanese denim companies had made their shipments and thus had sunk most of their cash, and now they've prevented them from selling their stock. For small companies like Oni, for example, this may actually be enough to kill them outright. I hope not, but it might. Given that the companies producing repros aren't actually stealing consumers from Levis--because as a denimhead, I can tell you, Levi's doesn't offer a product that's even vaguely comparable--doesn't that seem simply vindictive? The companies aren't even competing for the same consumers.

Further, I'm pissed because this is probably going to be most damaging for the small business owners like Gordon at BiG and Kiya at Self Edge, who suddenly have rent and employees and no (or drastically reduced) product. The Japanese companies are going to comply, so why not time this in such a way to allow them to do so without potentially destroying some of the manufacturing companies and small businesses selling the product?

Do you really think that the top people at Levi's are sitting in their offices saying... no, let's not start the complaints now, let's wait 6 months until the companies that are ripping off our design are more established so we can ruin them!

Levi's is so much bigger than these other companies, they probably decided that there is now a big enough problem with the repros that it is hurting their business, and they decided to take action. I realize that we all like denim here, and the stuff from these companies is way better than the stuff Levi's puts out, but Levi's is a major brand that has to protect itself. They are the ones with the right to their imagery/branding, not these other smaller companies. They really don't owe these other manufacturers anything... so even though it sucks for us, we all just kind of have to understand that this was bound to happen at some point.

 

[Saucemaster]

Originally Posted by raley

Do you really think that the top people at Levi's are sitting in their offices saying... no, let's not start the complaints now, let's wait 6 months until the companies that are ripping off our design are more established so we can ruin them!

It has nothing to do with the companies being "more established." It has to do with timing the injunction to stop all worldwide sales of the jeans such that the stock would already have been produced and shipped to the retailers--Levi's seems to have been doing their best to insure that an entire season's worth of product is simply lost. They can't be sold, they can't be changed to be compliant. And do I think it was intentional? Yes. Levi's is in the clothing manufacturing business themselves. I have no doubt that they're *well* aware of when shipments typically go out and when it's too late in the production process to change anything. Even if the jeans were still sitting on the docks (so to speak), at least the companies could theoretically retrieve them, slice off the tabs, take a seam-ripper to the arcuate, and... I dunno, dye or singe the leather on the patches? But they waited until it was shipped and then hit both the manufacturers and the retailers. Why do you think it *wasn't* intentional?

 

[chronoaug]

In an ideal world, they would've gone about it another way. But it's pretty obvious levis set their guns to kill and not stun. I think it's lame, but justified.

I'm worried a bit about the pockets. Kiya said that he has gotten samples from some companies and that he has mixed feelings about some of them. He said that we shouldn't be worried, but i hope i don't have go about taking the stitching out of my new japanese repros when i buy them in a couple months or whenever everything gets back to (at least close to) normal. To anyone who has removed stitching, does it leave a mark where it's obvious you removed the stitching or does it eventually end up looking like intentionally blank pockets?

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by Saucemaster

I can't speak for anyone else, but for my part, I'm not pissed that Levi's decided to defend their trademark; I'm pissed at how they're defending it. It appears that they purposefully waited until most of the Japanese denim companies had made their shipments and thus had sunk most of their cash, and now they've prevented them from selling their stock. For small companies like Oni, for example, this may actually be enough to kill them outright. I hope not, but it might. Given that the companies producing repros aren't actually stealing consumers from Levis--because as a denimhead, I can tell you, Levi's doesn't offer a product that's even vaguely comparable--doesn't that seem simply vindictive? The companies aren't even competing for the same consumers.

Further, I'm pissed because this is probably going to be most damaging for the small business owners like Gordon at BiG and Kiya at Self Edge, who suddenly have rent and employees and no (or drastically reduced) product. The Japanese companies are going to comply, so why not time this in such a way to allow them to do so without potentially destroying some of the manufacturing companies and small businesses selling the product?
Think of it this way... If I knew that you were ******* my wife, I would probably wait until you were in the position that I could do the most amount of damage possible. Perhaps I would even wait until you were actually ******* her so that I could "kill two birds with one stone". This is basically the position in which Levi's finds itself. The best thing that they can do is to both do away with this fledgling competition, and do it in a way that tells others who might try in the future that it would be smarter to think twice. Back to ******* my wife... why wouldn't I want to make sure that first of all you wouldn't continue, and second of all nobody else would want to try? Actually, I would probably just let you have her, but that is besides the point

.

 

[tundrafour]

Originally Posted by chronoaug

To anyone who has removed stitching, does it leave a mark where it's obvious you removed the stitching or does it eventually end up looking like intentionally blank pockets?
It looks like "intentionally blank" pockets, especially if you remove it prior to any wear or washes. No big deal.

Originally Posted by iammatt

If I knew that you were ******* my wife, I would probably wait until you were in the position that I could do the most amount of damage possible. Perhaps I would even wait until you were actually ******* her so that I could "kill two birds with one stone".
But, to extend your metaphor, are the repro companies actually sleeping with Levi's wife? It seems to me they'd be sleeping with a similar-looking woman who is arguably better in bed. (Okay, this is getting ridiculous!

)

 

[swisloc]

Originally Posted by iammatt

This is basically the position in which Levi's finds itself. The best thing that they can do is to both do away with this fledgling competition, and do it in a way that tells others who might try in the future that it would be smarter to think twice.

+1
as much as i love the quality of the product "repro" brands produce, just the fact that they decided at some point to mimic levis style meant that they knew that there was capital value in connecting their brand image to levis. the more i think about it the more i don't really feal that sorry for them.

 

[Saucemaster]

Originally Posted by iammatt

Think of it this way...

If I knew that you were ******* my wife, I would probably wait until you were in the position that I could do the most amount of damage possible. Perhaps I would even wait until you were actually ******* her so that I could "kill two birds with one stone".

This is basically the position in which Levi's finds itself. The best thing that they can do is to both do away with this fledgling competition, and do it in a way that tells others who might try in the future that it would be smarter to think twice.

Back to ******* my wife... why wouldn't I want to make sure that first of all you wouldn't continue, and second of all nobody else would want to try? Actually, I would probably just let you have her, but that is besides the point

.

That's why I was took care to specify that, as far as I can tell, they're not even directly competing. They're not even ******* the same woman! Seriously, Levi's doesn't even offer a product that competes with those the repro companies are producing. None of the denimheads who buy the Japanese repros are going to buy LVCs instead, for example, because the selling points of the Japanese denim just aren't there for the LVCs. I think tundrafour's analogy might be more accurate.

Simply forcing the companies making repros to completely retool and redesign their entire line seems like message enough when there's no direct competition involved. Like I said, I agree that Levi's had to defend its trademark (though I find certain aspects of that trademark ludicrous), but I don't see that they had to do it in a way that seems vindictive for the sake of being vindictive. Think of it this way: it's one thing for the police to arrest someone who's been accused of a crime. It's another thing for the police to go to his house, shoot his dog, bust his door down, and beat him unconscious before throwing him in the squad car, without first giving him a chance to come along peacefully.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Shooting dogs is just wrong.

 

[Saucemaster]

Originally Posted by iammatt

Shooting dogs is just wrong.

There, we're in 100% agreement.

 

[darkamage]

Trademark is different than copyright. Unlike copyrights (or patents), a person or a company can actually lose a trademarks if they do not actively defend its trademarks. And unlike copyrights (or patents), a company or a person cannot choose which infringing entity they want to sue.

So if Levi's let the small Japanase brands to use/infringe on its trademarks, then if later Lee/Wrangler/Gap/A&F uses any of the trademarks, Levi's may not be able to defend it. Once a trademark is lost, it's not a trademark anymore.

In contrast, the recording industry can decide who they want to sue for pirating their stuff while letting others go without losing the copyrights to their materials.

I'm not defending Levi's decision or method and I don't agree with how some of the trademark/copyright/patent law is implemented. But that is how it works and Levi's is legally in the right.

 

[LA Guy]

Originally Posted by iammatt

Shooting dogs is just wrong.

That's racist! They make good eatin'.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by LA Guy

That's racist! They make good eatin'.
Dogeater!

 

[Brian SD]

Breaking news! Levi's owns the rights to **** Woman X. Unfortunately, Woman X has a nose between her two eyes, and so nobody else ******** a girl with a nose between her eyes.

Additionally, if the shape of her pubic hair at all resembles an eagle in flight, you can't **** her. Even if she doesn't have a nose or a leather patch.

 

[swisloc]

Originally Posted by Saucemaster

That's why I was took care to specify that, as far as I can tell, they're not even directly competing. They're not even ******* the same woman! Seriously, Levi's doesn't even offer a product that competes with those the repro companies are producing.

The actual product doesn't really matter (to Levis), in this case the only "product" they are concerned about is the image. I seriously doubt Levis was ever, or will ever, care about weather or not they are competing for the same market. To them, it's only about image recognition, and on this front they will continue to protect their interest as it is their single greatest asset as a company, and here they are directly competing.

 

[Saucemaster]

Originally Posted by swisloc

The actual product doesn't really matter (to Levis), in this case the only "product" they are concerned about is the image. I seriously doubt Levis was ever, or will ever, care about weather or not they are competing for the same market. To them, it's only about image recognition, and on this front they will continue to protect their interest as it is their single greatest asset as a company, and here they are directly competing.

That's exactly my point, though: if all they're concerned about is brand image and trademark, then like I said, why be vindictive? Force the companies to remove anything that violates the trademark and be done with it. Then companies like Studio D'Artisan are forced to stand on their own design with no reference to your own company's history and image. If they do, good for them, they're not actually competing for your customers anyway. If they don't, then they deserved what they got, since clearly their success was predicated on the halo of your own brand image. But why try to load the dice?

It does kind of make me wonder if Levi's is planning on expanding their offerings in the premium market, though. If they're planning on doing serious, quality repros of their own past works--well beyond the current LVC line--then this would be a logical first step. Try to at least hobble the people who now WILL be directly competing with you, and make sure you're the only authentic repro company in the game. But I doubt it, since I can't imagine the market's really all that big (at least in the US). Doesn't seem like it'd be worth it, when Levi's can do a HELL of a lot better by just selling thousands more jeans at Wal Mart, etc.