American denim giant Levi Strauss & Co. has launched a major lawsuit against Premier Brands Group over what it claims is a brazen counterfeit operation involving nearly 100,000 fake Levi’s products.
At a Glance
- Levi’s has sued Premier Brands Group for allegedly trafficking over 90,000 counterfeit Levi’s products
- The counterfeit items contained obvious errors like misspelling “San Francisco” as “Sans Francisco”
- Premier Brands allegedly used forged authorization letters with counterfeit Levi’s trademarks
- Levi’s is seeking an injunction, destruction of fake merchandise, and financial compensation
- Premier Brands Group has not yet responded to the allegations
Massive Counterfeit Operation Uncovered
Levi Strauss & Co. (LS&Co.) has filed a lawsuit against New York-based Premier Brands Group (PBG), its CEO Alan Chartash, and other unnamed individuals for allegedly operating a large-scale counterfeit operation. According to court documents, the defendants purchased, marketed, and sold more than 90,000 counterfeit Levi’s-branded products, including jeans, jackets, and shirts. The iconic American denim manufacturer claims these actions constitute federal trademark counterfeiting, infringement, and dilution, among other offenses.
The lawsuit details how the counterfeit products were sourced from known counterfeit producers, with PBG having “no reasonable basis to believe that such products might be genuine.” Levi’s maintains it has no partnership or business relationship with Premier Brands Group, which markets itself as a company that transforms surplus inventory into profitable opportunities. The American denim company asserts that these illegal activities have cost it millions in lost sales.
Obvious Errors and False Documentation
What makes this case particularly notable are the blatant errors present in the counterfeit merchandise. In court filings, Levi’s highlighted that many of the fake products contained a fundamental spelling error, misspelling the company’s hometown as “Sans Francisco” instead of “San Francisco.” This error was so obvious that Levi’s argues no reasonable person—especially those claiming decades of industry experience—could have believed the products were authentic.
“Certain of the counterfeit products themselves contained a basic error in the spelling of ‘San Francisco,’ making it ‘Sans’ or without Francisco, such that no reasonable person—let alone defendants who claim to have decades of industry experience—would have believed that the products were genuine” Levi’s wrote in the complaint.
Beyond the poorly manufactured counterfeit items, Levi’s alleges that Premier Brands Group went further by creating fraudulent documentation to authenticate the fake merchandise. The lawsuit states that PBG “trafficked in forged letters” supposedly from Levi’s representatives, which included counterfeit Levi’s trademarks and falsely authorized the resale of these counterfeit products. These actions, Levi’s claims, have damaged its reputation and goodwill with consumers.
Legal Action and Remedies Sought
Levi’s is aggressively pursuing legal remedies through the courts. The company is seeking an immediate injunction to halt Premier Brands Group from continuing to sell counterfeit Levi’s products. Additionally, Levi’s wants the court to order the destruction of all counterfeit merchandise in PBG’s possession. The denim maker is also pursuing financial damages, including profits that Premier Brands Group allegedly made from selling the counterfeit items.
“Defendants also trafficked in forged letters purported to come from LS&Co. Representatives, and which also counterfeited LS&Co.’s trademarks and purported to authenticate as genuine and authorize the further resale of these counterfeit products” Levi’s alleged.
The lawsuit highlights the ongoing battle that major American brands face against counterfeit operations. For Levi’s, one of America’s oldest and most recognized apparel companies, protecting its intellectual property and brand integrity remains paramount. Premier Brands Group has yet to respond to the lawsuit or comment on the allegations. Industry observers will be watching closely as this case develops, as it could set precedents for how similar trademark infringement cases are handled in the future.
