Licensing showdown: PVH and G-III feud escalates over high-stakes legal clash

Tensions between PVH and G-III are escalating. The latest twist in the ongoing dispute between the two US fashion giants: PVH is countersuitng and has filed a motion to dismiss G-III’s lawsuit, doubling down on its insistence that it did not breach a contract, as its disgruntled partner had initially claimed. While hostility between the duo has only recently intensified, the strain on their relationship had actually begun mounting back in 2022. Here is everything you need to know…

Shifting strategies ignite feud

In November 2022, PVH announced an extension of its licensing agreement with G-III, a firm it had already been partnered with since 2005. The renewed deal pertained to the women’s North America wholesale business for Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, for which the expiration date was moved from 2025 to 2027.

It came as part of a broader strategic pivot under the PVH+ Plan, which set out to simplify the business. Within this strategy, CEO Stefan Larsson outlined an intention to regain control over the group’s owned brands, and as such, the extended deal with G-III appeared to serve as a temporary bridge to PVH’s eventual more rounded ownership of specific Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger categories.

At the time, Larsson shared: “By bringing these core product categories in-house over time, we will be able to draw on the power and expertise of our global brand teams and have them fully connected to the demand-driven supply chain we are developing.”

PVH’s plan to shift its reliance away from a third-party licensing structure raised alarm bells at G-III, whose licensing model and financial performance was in itself largely reliant on PVH’s business. The scene for the lawsuit was thus set and, following failed negotiations, the case was ultimately filed with New York State Court, initially as redacted documents that were eventually unsealed.

Waning relations and ‘poorly executed’ strategies targeted

The 250 million dollar suit lawsuit specifically pertains to the women’s tailoring licenses of Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, for which G-III alleges it was denied three-year extensions. It claims that PVH had no basis to terminate the agreements and further accused the company of carrying out a “deliberate campaign of unlawful misconduct”.

The suit particularly takes aim at the waning relationship between the two companies following the 2021 departure of PVH’s former CEO, Manny Chirico, under which the initial agreements were established. G-III claims that its former partner had “made a series of strategic and entirely avoidable blunders”. Among other examples, the company points to a press release published by PVH, in which information surrounding its plans to regain ownership of the brands was said to have differed from drafts shared with G-III.

G-III goes on to claim that any negative CAGR seen in both businesses was a result of “defendants’ own ill-considered and poorly executed strategies”. The suit further alleges that PVH is attempting to impose an extracontractual condition on G-III’s right to extend the licenses, beyond the agreed-upon performance requirements.

The changing face of licensing

For PVH, winding down its licensing business is, as mentioned, part of a wider strategy to simplify the business. The company intends to directly operate key lifestyle categories within the North American market, including Calvin Klein sportswear and jeans, reacquired earlier this year, and Tommy Hilfiger sportswear, to follow.

The return of G-III’s licensing takeback, which generated 300 million dollars in EBIT in FY24, represents just 20 percent of PVH’s expected 2025 licensing revenue. While licensing remains a competitive strength, PVH aims to boost long-term growth by regaining control of its North America wholesale business.

This doesn’t mean that PVH is entirely scrapping third-party partners. In fact, the company recently secured a licensing agreement for its outerwear category in the US and Canada with Herman Kay-Mystic LLC, reflecting a goal to work with “complementary partners”. “Our strong, go-forward licensing partnerships play an important role in helping us drive sustainable, brand-accretive growth and unlock the power of our iconic brands,” a PVH spokesperson told FashionUnited.

In response to PVH’s plans, G-III has also been forced to change course so that it relies less on what was once a substantial part of its business. The company therefore set out to reposition certain brands and diversify its portfolio, seen in the relaunch of its Donna Karan label and the acquisition of other licenses, most recently from Authentic Brands Group’s Nautica.

PVH counters with motion to dismiss

In a statement to FashionUnited, a spokesperson for PVH said G-III’s “claims are baseless” and noted that it would respond via the legal process, for which its intentions have now been made known in a motion to dismiss the case. PVH specifically zones in on the “fixed-term extensions” of certain licenses between itself and G-III. From the perspective of PVH, G-III is seeking to extend rights that its licenses to distribute both Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein’s suit products do not provide.

Looking back to the initial deal in 2022, PVH claimed G-III did not agree to automatically extend the specified licenses, allowing brand owners the option to decline any future extension requests. As such, the owners denied G-III’s renewal request in March 2025, leading to the legal proceedings that followed.

PVH goes on to state that G-III’s allegations are “baseless and fail as a matter of law”, denying, among other things, G-III’s claims that it influenced brand owners’ decision to decline renewals and that the refusal of extensions was unreasonable. “At most, the complaint [G-III] reflects dissatisfaction with the strategic direction for Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, not wrongful conduct by the brands’ owners,” PVH states at one point in the filing.

When addressing G-III’s comments on the PVH+ Plan, PVH notes that G-III’s use of terms like “poorly executed” and a strategic “blunder” when rejecting the plan provided “reasonable basis” to refuse the extension. The company also claimed G-III refused to prioritise digital sales in the US, a core pillar of the plan, and that the renewal request did not align with the condition that G-III was “in compliance with all material terms”.

Shortly after PVH filed its response, the court ultimately ruled to deny the motion to dismiss, but without prejudice, allowing the company to refile the motion later by complying with court rules. The court is yet to rule on the substance of the filings and the case remains active.