The Lawsuit

Levi Strauss & Co. has filed suit against Globe International — the Australian company behind Shawn Stussy's S/Double clothing brand — claiming trademark infringement over the use of tabs on the back pockets of jeans. The lawsuit, reported on June 9, 2026, pits one of the world's most recognizable apparel companies against a streetwear label co-founded by the man who built Stüssy into a global phenomenon. At its core is a surprisingly simple question: who has the right to put a small fabric tab on a back pocket?

According to Levi's legal position, they have owned that right since 1936.

The Red Tab: A Recognizable Mark

The Guardian reports that Levi Strauss has claimed trademark rights in a red tab bearing the LEVI'S mark since 1936, the same year it says it began sewing those tabs onto the back pockets of its jeans. Nearly 90 years of continuous, visible use is the foundation of Levi's legal claim. In trademark law across most Western legal systems, long and consistent use of a distinctive mark in commerce creates legal rights — sometimes stronger than formal registration alone — and Levi's has both.

The tab is far from ordinary branding. It is one of the most instantly recognizable identifiers in fashion: a small rectangular piece of fabric, stitched into the seam of a back pocket, with the word LEVI'S visible from a distance. Courts in multiple countries have previously recognized Levi's red tab as a protectable "trade dress" — a legal term for the distinctive visual appearance of a product — confirming that consumers connect the tab's shape and color with Levi's, even without reading the text.

Who Is S/Double?

Globe International is an Australian public company that operates across skateboarding, action sports, and fashion. S/Double is the label associated with Shawn Stussy, the Laguna Beach designer who founded Stüssy in the early 1980s and helped create what we now call streetwear — a youth-driven aesthetic that blends sportswear, skateboard culture, and high-end fashion. Stussy left the company bearing his name in 1996 and has since worked under the S/Double brand.

Why would a streetwear brand use a pocket tab? The answer lies in streetwear's design philosophy. For decades, streetwear has deliberately borrowed visual elements from workwear — the five-pocket jean, the distinctive stitching patterns, the visible fabric edges — and a pocket tab fits squarely into that borrowed vocabulary. Whether S/Double's use of a tab was meant as a respectful nod to heritage denim, a coincidental design choice, or something done without proper legal clearance is exactly the kind of question trademark litigation is designed to answer.

What Levi's Must Prove

To win a trademark infringement case, Levi Strauss needs to establish several things: that its red tab is a valid, protectable trademark; that S/Double's tab is similar enough to cause consumer confusion; and that S/Double's use is not protected by legal defenses like "fair use" (using a mark to describe something, not sell it) or other exceptions.

The key test is "likelihood of confusion" — would an average consumer mistake an S/Double garment for a Levi's product, or think S/Double has Levi's permission to use the tab? Courts weigh several factors: how similar are the marks, how similar are the products, how careful are typical consumers when buying these items, and is there evidence that anyone has actually been confused.

The consumer sophistication question could work both ways. Streetwear buyers, especially those who know S/Double's history, are typically brand-conscious and unlikely to confuse S/Double with Levi's. But a pocket tab is exactly the kind of detail that registers in your mind without conscious thought — which is precisely why trademark law protects trade dress in the first place.

Globe may also challenge the scope of Levi's rights. Trademark protection has limits; it covers the specific mark as used for specific products and services. If S/Double's tab looks different enough, or is positioned or labeled differently, Globe might argue the marks are not confusingly similar. These are critical details that will shape how the case unfolds.

A Broader Pattern

This lawsuit reflects a larger tension that has emerged over the past 15 years. As luxury and heritage brands moved to protect their distinctive visual elements, they increasingly clashed with streetwear designers using the same vocabulary. Christian Louboutin fought for exclusive rights to red-soled shoes; Hermès sued over digital versions of its famous Birkin handbag; Levi's itself has pursued cases over its distinctive arcuate (curved) stitching pattern. Each reflects the same fundamental problem: workwear and luxury design codes have become so absorbed into contemporary fashion that the line between respectful homage, shared aesthetic language, and legal infringement has become genuinely blurred.

The broader context here suggests that courts have not given uniform answers to these questions, which explains why each new case attracts wider attention. The stakes extend beyond the two companies in the courtroom.

Levi's approach is also instructive because the company has consistently chosen to litigate rather than simply rely on its brand reputation to discourage copycats. This matters legally: if a company does not actively defend its trademark, courts may eventually find it has "abandoned" or stopped actively protecting the mark, which weakens or destroys the trademark rights. For Levi's, this lawsuit is as much about maintaining legal protections as about this particular competitor.

Where It's Being Fought

Globe International is listed on the Australian stock exchange, so this case will be fought in Australian courts under Australian consumer and trademark law. The relevant law is the Trade Marks Act 1995 and the Australian Consumer Law, which prohibits misleading conduct. Australian trademark law works similarly to US and European systems — using the "likelihood of confusion" test — but the available remedies and court procedures differ.

From Levi's perspective, a win against a visible, design-literate competitor sends a stronger signal across the denim and streetwear industries than a victory against an unknown copyist. A settlement that includes product recalls, brand changes, or a court order halting use of the tab would be studied by other companies in these sectors.

For Globe and S/Double, the stakes are different. Shawn Stussy carries significant cultural weight in streetwear circles, and the brand has an audience that will form opinions about this dispute based on loyalty and aesthetic values, not legal doctrine. That dynamic makes this case unusual — it is being watched by people who care about the outcome for reasons that have little to do with whether consumers might actually be confused.

What Happens Next

Procedurally, Globe will file a defense and may challenge the validity of Levi's trademark registrations. Both sides will exchange evidence about S/Double's design history, internal discussions about the pocket tab, and any consumer research on confusion. Both parties know that trademark cases are expensive to litigate to trial, so settlement is the likely outcome.

The deeper question — whether heritage brands can claim exclusive rights to design elements that have become part of a shared visual language — will not be fully resolved here. But this case will add another important data point to that evolving legal conversation, and given the prominence of the parties involved, it will likely be cited in future disputes.