Why Levi's Is Suing a Streetwear Brand Over a Tiny Pocket Tab

The Lawsuit

Levi Strauss & Co. is taking Globe International to court. Globe owns the S/Double clothing brand, which was co-founded by Shawn Stussy — a legendary figure in streetwear design. The dispute centers on something small: the red fabric tab that sits on the back pocket of jeans.

According to The Guardian, Levi's filed the suit on June 9, 2026. Levi's says it has the right to use this tab on the back pockets of its clothing. The question at the heart of the case is straightforward but surprisingly important: can two companies both use similar tabs on their jeans?

What Makes This Tab Valuable?

That small red rectangle with the word LEVI'S stitched onto it has been on Levi's jeans since 1936 — nearly 90 years. Over that time, it became one of the most instantly recognizable marks in fashion. Most people don't even need to read the word LEVI'S to know what brand they are looking at. The tab communicates brand identity through its shape and color alone.

In legal terms, this is called "trade dress" — a way a product looks that customers connect with one company and no other. Courts have previously agreed that Levi's red tab qualifies for this protection. The company's argument is that this long history of use gives it the right to prevent others from using similar tabs on similar products.

Who Is Globe International?

Globe International is an Australian company listed on the stock exchange. It owns several brands focused on skateboarding, action sports, and streetwear. S/Double is one of those labels. Shawn Stussy founded the original Stüssy brand in the early 1980s and helped create what we now call streetwear. He left that company in 1996 and has since worked under the S/Double name.

A pocket tab is a normal design element in jeans and workwear. Streetwear designers have long borrowed visual ideas from workwear history — pocket styles, stitching patterns, and fabric details. Whether S/Double deliberately copied Levi's tab, was inspired by the broader workwear tradition, or simply chose the same design independently is what this lawsuit aims to determine.

What Does Levi's Need to Prove?

To win in court, Levi's must show three main things. First, that its tab design is genuinely distinctive and legally protected. Second, that S/Double's tab is similar enough to cause confusion — that a typical shopper might mistake one brand for the other or think they are connected. Third, that S/Double is not allowed to use the design under "fair use" rules, which sometimes permit similar designs when they serve a practical purpose.

The confusion test looks at several factors: how alike the two tabs really are, whether both companies sell similar products, and how smart the average customer is about spotting brands. This last point cuts both ways here. People who buy streetwear are generally quite brand-aware and unlikely to confuse S/Double with Levi's. But a small pocket tab might work on a subconscious level — it communicates brand identity without customers consciously reading it, which is exactly why trade dress law protects such features.

Globe will probably argue that its tab looks different enough, or is positioned differently, that customers would not be confused. This is a fair legal challenge that the court will need to evaluate.

A Bigger Pattern

This is not the first time a major brand has sued over design elements that have become part of fashion's shared language. In the early 2010s, luxury brands aggressively protected elements like Christian Louboutin's red-sole shoes and Hermès' iconic handbag shapes. Levi's itself has pursued cases involving the arcuate stitch pattern on jeans pockets. All of these cases stem from the same core problem: workwear and luxury codes have become so thoroughly woven into contemporary fashion that distinguishing between homage, shared aesthetic vocabulary, and genuine infringement has become difficult.

There is a legal reason Levi's chose to sue now rather than let the matter slide. Companies that ignore infringement of their marks risk losing legal protection — a process called "abandonment." By taking action, Levi's maintains its legal rights. This is as much a defensive legal move as it is an aggressive commercial one.

Where This Will Happen and What That Means

Globe is Australian, so this case will proceed under Australian law. Australian trademark law works similarly to trademark law in the United States and Europe — the basic test of whether consumers might be confused is the same. But the specific remedies available and the way the court process works are different.

The outcome could send a signal across the entire streetwear and denim industry. If Levi's wins and S/Double has to change its design or recall products, other brands will notice. That ripple effect is part of why companies choose high-profile defendants — the legal win is only half the story.

The stakes are different for each side. For Levi's, this is straightforward: protect a famous trademark. For Globe and Shawn Stussy, this carries cultural weight beyond law. Stussy built his reputation on understanding and evolving design traditions. His community will form their own views about the merits of this case independent of what a court decides.

What Happens Now

Globe will file a response defending itself and may challenge whether Levi's actually holds valid trademark rights. Both sides will exchange documents — including emails and internal design decisions related to the pocket tab — and evidence about whether consumers have actually been confused.

Most trademark lawsuits settle before trial because litigation is expensive and unpredictable. A settlement might involve S/Double agreeing to modify its design or remove products from shelves.

The larger question — whether century-old brands can keep exclusive control over design elements that have become part of the broader fashion vocabulary — will not be fully answered by this one case. But each lawsuit adds another layer to how courts think about these issues. Given the prominence of both Levi's and Stussy in fashion history, this case will likely influence future disputes over heritage brand rights.