Adidas has been globally recognized for over 75 years for its consistent use of the “Three Stripes” mark in sports apparel, footwear, and accessories. The company’s extensive marketing efforts and collaborations with prominent individuals and institutions have solidified the “Three Stripes” as a symbol synonymous with Adidas’ quality and innovation. American luxury fashion designer Thom Browne, at one point, used a design resembling Adidas’ iconic three stripes in his products. Following Adidas’ objections, Browne modified the design to feature four stripes and, in 2009, introduced the “Four Bar Design” as a motif integral to his brand. Over time, this design became a defining element of Thom Browne’s identity, prominently featured in his collections.
Some designs become so intrinsically tied to a brand’s identity that they transcend mere aesthetic preference, evolving into a signature emblem. The legal dispute between Adidas and Thom Browne, detailed below, highlights the delicate boundaries between creativity and originality. Here, stripes are more than a visual element—they symbolize the essence and iconic value of a brand. When such powerful symbols intersect, discussions about boundaries and rights inevitably arise.
In this case, while Adidas initially refrained from objecting to Thom Browne’s designs, the dispute emerged when Thom Browne Inc. and Thom Browne UK Limited challenged the validity of 16 trademarks in Adidas’ portfolio, including its core “Three Stripes” mark, arguing that they were overly broad and lacked precision. In response, Adidas filed a counterclaim, focusing on the “Four Bar Design,” which it alleged to be confusingly similar to its own trademarks, citing trademark infringement and passing off. [1]
Thom Browne countered by asserting that Adidas sought to monopolize an expansive category of stripe designs beyond the scope of its registered trademarks. Adidas, however, claimed that the “Four Bar Design” infringed its trademark, particularly in the sportswear markets, where the risk of consumer confusion was deemed high. The court commenced by analyzing the trademarks in question and examining whether Adidas’ trademarks complied with the clarity and precision requirements under the Trade Marks Act 1994. Adidas’ “Three Stripes” trademarks were characterized as position marks, prominently displayed on clothing, footwear, and accessories. Thom Browne argued that these trademarks encompassed a broad range of visual permutations, effectively granting Adidas a monopoly over various stripe configurations.
Adidas defended its marks by emphasizing their historical use and widespread reputation in the sportswear industry. The company argued that the “Three Stripes” had become synonymous with Adidas and served as a strong global brand identifier. Evidence presented included long-standing use, significant advertising investments, and collaborations with high-profile celebrities and sports teams, all of which bolstered the acquired distinctiveness of the marks. Adidas asserted that its marks were specific, associated with vertically positioned “Three Stripes” on garments, and had achieved distinctiveness through decades of use. Additionally, the company contended that its marks were not merely decorative but widely recognized by consumers as strong indicators of origin.
Conversely, Thom Browne argued that the “Four Bar Design,” typically comprising four evenly spaced horizontal bars on the sleeves or legs of garments, was inspired by varsity sweaters and letterman jackets worn by American university athletes, an aesthetic which he admired and wished to reference and had been used consistently since 2009. Despite the conceptual similarity to Adidas’ stripes, Thom Browne maintained that his design functioned as a brand identifier for high-end fashion, distinct from Adidas’ sportswear branding.
The court acknowledged Adidas’ extensive reputation and the strength of the “Three Stripes” as a trademark, supported by evidence of global recognition, advertising campaigns, celebrity endorsements, and sports sponsorships. High-profile associations, such as collaborations with Beyoncé and Pharrell Williams and sponsorship of events like the FIFA World Cup, reinforced the acquired distinctiveness of Adidas’ trademarks. Thom Browne, however, argued that despite Adidas’ undeniable reputation, its own brand targeted a niche, high-end luxury market, distinct from the sportswear consumer base. This differentiation, Thom Browne argued, reduced the likelihood of consumer confusion between the “Four Bar Design” and Adidas’ stripes, particularly given the segmentation of their respective markets.
Ultimately, the court found Adidas’ trademarks valid and distinctive but determined they were not broad enough to encompass all stripe-based designs. The court emphasized the importance of clarity and precision in trademark registrations to prevent unjust monopolization. While Adidas’ “Three Stripes” enjoyed strong recognition, the court concluded that the “Four Bar Design” was sufficiently distinct, particularly considering the differing target markets and consumer bases of the two brands. As there was no substantial evidence of consumer confusion between Adidas and Thom Browne’s products, the court ruled that the “Four Bar Design” did not infringe Adidas’ trademarks or mislead consumers. The ruling underscored the balance between innovation and coexistence, allowing brands to evolve without overstepping their boundaries. It also highlighted the importance of balancing trademark protection with fair competition.
This case serves as a significant precedent in trademark law, particularly within the fashion industry, where visual elements like stripes, colors, and patterns are prevalent. The decision reaffirmed the need for clarity and specificity in trademark registrations to avoid monopolization of generic or commonly used designs, the importance of market context in assessing the likelihood of confusion, and the possibility for aesthetic elements to coexist, provided they are not intentionally imitative.
For Adidas, the decision was a reminder to clearly define the scope of its trademarks. For Thom Browne, it affirmed the right to innovate and distinguish itself as a luxury brand. More broadly, the case reinforced the principle that trademark law must protect both consumers and brands while fostering creativity and competition.
Yağmur AKTAN
Legal Counsel
yagmur.aktan@invokat.com
[1] Thom Browne Inc v Adidas AG [2024] EWHC 2990 (Ch), Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property List, 22 November 2024.
