There is a new development in the ongoing dispute between the two US fashion groups. PVH submitted an application to the court to reject G-III’s lawsuit. The company thus confirms its statement that he has not broken a contract. G-III originally claimed this. The argument has been intensified recently, but the burden on the business relationship began in 2022.
Below you will find the most important background.
Changed strategies spark a dispute
In November 2022, PVH extended its license agreement with G-III. The two companies have been working together since 2005. The extension concerned the North American wholesale business for women’s fashion of the brands Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger. The contract was originally supposed to expire in 2025, but was extended until 2027.
This decision was part of a more comprehensive strategic realignment as part of the PVH+ Plan. The aim was to simplify the business model. CEO Stefan Larsson announced that he would like to take over more control over his own brands in the future. The extended agreement with G-III was therefore a temporary solution. In the long term, PVH planned to keep certain product categories from Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger themselves.
Back then, Stefan Larsson said that PVH wanted to focus on the strength and know-how of the global market teams. In the future, these should be connected directly to the newly developed, demand -oriented supply chain.
The plan to loosen from external license models caused great unrest at G-III. G-III’s business model is strongly based on licenses, and a significant part of the income comes from working with PVH. This laid the foundation stone for the later legal dispute. After the negotiations failed, G-III filed a lawsuit to the New York State Court. First, the documents were submitted blackened, but later made public.
Winning relationships and ‘poorly implemented’ strategies in sight
The $ 250-million law lawsuit (231 million euros) refers to the licenses for women’s fashion by Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger. G-III accuses PVH of refusing to extend the agreements by three years. From G-III’s point of view, PVH had no legal basis to terminate the contracts. In addition, G-III accuses the company of having operated a “intentional campaign of illegal misconduct”.
At the center of the lawsuit is the increasingly tense relationship between the two companies. This is said to have deteriorated after the departure of the former PVH CEO Manny Chirico 2021. The original agreements had been made under his leadership. G-III accuses PVH of making a number of strategic and avoidable mistakes since then.
Among other things, the company refers to a press release published by PVH. This is said to have deviated from the previously divided designs, especially with regard to the plans for the recovery of the brand ownership.
G-III continues that declining growth rates in both companies are not due to external factors, but to PVHS own poorly planned and weakly implemented strategies. G-III PVH also accuses of introducing an extra-contractual condition. This is intended to establish the right to extend the contract with additional performance requirements that go beyond what has been agreed.
The changing face of the licensing
For PVH, retreat from the license business is part of a more comprehensive strategy for simplifying the corporate structure. The company plans to operate central lifestyle categories on the North American market itself. These include Calvin Klein Sportswear and Jeans, which were bought back at the beginning of the year. Tommy Hilfiger Sportswear will also be controlled directly in the future.
The return of the license by G-III in the 2024 financial year generated an EBITDA of $ 300 million (276 million euros). Nevertheless, this area only makes around 20 percent of PVH’s expected license income in 2025. Despite the strategic change, the licensing remains a competitive advantage for PVH. However, the company relies on sustainable growth by regaining control over the North American wholesale business.
PVH does not fundamentally exclude cooperation with third -party providers. A new license agreement with Herman Kay-Mystic LLC for the outer clothing category in the USA and Canada was recently completed. PVH thus pursues the goal of working with additional partners. A spokesman told Fashionunited that strong, future -oriented license partnerships continued to play an important role. They should help promote brand -effective growth and to exploit the full potential of the cult brands.
G-III was also forced to realign the strategy change from PVH. The group wants to reduce its dependence on a business area that once played a major role. As a result, G-III plans to re-position individual brands and to broaden its portfolio. This can be seen, among other things, in the reintroduction of the Donna Karan label and in the takeover of additional licenses, most recently for Nautica from Authentic Brands Group.
PVH counters with an application for rejection
A spokesman for PVH told fashionunited that the claims of G-III were baseless from the company’s perspective. PVH wants to counter the allegations as part of the legal process. The company has already illustrated its position by an application to dismiss the procedure. In terms of content, PVH focuses on the regulations on the contract extensions of certain licenses with G-III. According to PVH, G-III tries to assert rights that are not covered by the licenses for suit products by Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein.
With a view to the original agreement from 2022, PVH said that G-III had not approved any automatic extension of the relevant licenses. This gave the brand owners the opportunity to reject future extensions. This happened in March 2025. The rejection of the application ultimately led to the current legal proceedings.
PVH rejected G-III’s allegations and said they were legally unfounded. Among other things, the company denied that the decision to reject has influenced. The claim that the rejection was unreasonable was also rejected. The complaint states that the dissatisfaction of G-III is more concerned with the strategic direction of Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger and not an actual misconduct of the brand owners.
The company also reacted to the criticism of G-III at the PVH+ Plan. PVH sees the use of terms such as “poorly implemented” and “strategic mistake” by G-III a comprehensible basis for the decision to refuse an extension. In addition, G-III refused to focus on digital sales in the United States. However, this was a central pillar of the new strategy. The extension application therefore did not meet the conditions, in particular not the prerequisite that all essential agreements are complied with.
Shortly after submitting the opinion by PVH, the court rejected the application for dismissal – but without prejudice. This means that PVH can submit the application again at a later date if the formal requirements of the court are met. The actual content of the case has not yet been decided. The procedure is still pending.
This article was used with digital tools translated.
Fashionunited uses artificial intelligence to accelerate the translation of articles and improve the end result. They help us make the international reporting of fashionunited a German -speaking readership quickly and comprehensively accessible. Articles that have been translated using AI-based tools are read and carefully edited by our editor: Correcting inside before they are published. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me by email to [email protected]