Delhi High Court Grants Levi Strauss Temporary Injunction Against Use of Its Iconic Pocket Tab Mark

The Delhi High Court has recently granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of US denim and apparel company Levi Strauss and Company, holding that it had made out a strong prima facie case for protection of its registered “Tab Device Mark” and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in its order dated February 23, 2026, observed that the “cumulative effect” of the pleadings, trademark registrations and sales figures tilted the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff.

The Court further noted that the loss and injury likely to be suffered would be in terms of dilution of its brand and registered Tab Device Mark, which “may not be measured in monetary terms” if an ex-parte ad-interim injunction were not granted.

The injunction restrains Beyoung Folks Private Limited, its directors, officers, employees and agents from manufacturing, marketing, offering for sale or selling any goods, including readymade clothing, bearing the defendant's tab device marks or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to Levi Strauss's registered Tab Device Mark.

Levi Strauss submitted that it first discovered the defendant's alleged unauthorised adoption and use of the Tab Device Mark in July 2025. A legal notice was sent on July 24, 2025, followed by a reminder on August 1. Beyoung replied on September 1 and, in a detailed letter dated September 19, denied Levi's rights in the Tab Device Mark, claiming its own mark was used in a “different artistic style, posture and context” and would not cause confusion or deception.

Tracing its origins to 1853 in the United States, Levi Strauss described itself as one of the world's leading apparel brands. It submitted that the Tab Device Mark was first proposed in 1936 by its National Sales Manager, who suggested placing a folded cloth ribbon in the seam of the rear pocket of denim jeans so as to be “easily identifiable to the consumers.”

The company asserted that through long and extensive use, the Tab Device Mark has acquired immense goodwill and recognition globally and in India, and has attained the status of a well-known mark under Article 6ibis of the Paris Convention. It stated that its global net revenue for the year ended 2025 exceeded USD 6.2 billion, while its Indian turnover from products bearing the Tab Device Mark reached Rs. 2,217 crore in the financial year 2024–2025.

According to Levi Strauss, a comparison of the competing marks showed that the defendant was seeking to dilute its registered trademark and capitalise on the distinctiveness and exclusivity associated with its established goodwill.

After examining the material placed on record, including trademark registrations and sales figures, the Court held that Levi Strauss had established a strong prima facie case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim relief.

"The cumulative effect of the aforesaid pleadings, documents, registrations and the sales figures etc. clearly tilted the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. Clearly, the loss and injury suffered by the plaintiff would be more in terms of dilution of its brand and registered Tab Device Mark, which may not be measured in monetary terms in case, ex-parte ad-interim injunction is not granted.”, the court observed.

The matter has been listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on April 28, 2026, for completion of service and pleadings, and before the Court on August 27, 2026.