Three stripes vs. four: Court decides in favour of Thom Browne over Adidas
In a recent intellectual property ruling, the UK High Court has dismissed Adidas’s trademark infringement claims against luxury fashion house Thom Browne Inc. (“Thom Browne”). The case is the latest chapter in a long-running battle over the use of striped designs, pitting Adidas’s iconic three-stripe logo against Thom Browne’s distinctive four-stripe motif. The court’s findings, which emphasised the importance of consumer perception and market context, have significant implications for both fashion and trademark law, offering clarity on the boundaries of trademark protection in competitive industries.
Background: the battle of the stripes
The legal tussle between Adidas and Thom Browne dates back to 2021 when Thom Browne commenced proceedings to invalidate sixteen of Adidas’s registered trademarks on the basis that they lack clarity and precision. Adidas subsequently filed a counterclaim against Thom Browne, claiming that its four-stripe designs caused confusion for the consumer and diluted the distinctiveness of Adidas’s existing trademarks, including the globally recognised three-stripe logo.
Adidas argued that Thom Browne's products, particularly its more recent expansion into activewear, encroached on the sportswear giant’s market and threatened its brand identity.
Thom Browne defended its designs, claiming that the four-stripe pattern was significantly different from Adidas’s three-stripe trademark. The brand argued that the two companies operate in distinct markets, emphasising its own position in the luxury fashion industry compared with Adidas’s focus on the mass-market sportswear sector.
Court ruling: Thom Browne's victory
Judge Joanna Smith ruled in favour of Thom Browne, invalidating several of Adidas's trademarks and rejecting its infringement claims. Some of the key points in this regard were:
- Lack of consumer confusion: The court found insufficient evidence that Thom Browne's four-stripe designs caused confusion among consumers. Highlighting the fact that each brand is marketed to distinctly different audiences and the visual differences between the logos, Judge Smith noted that, "the average, reasonably observant, consumer paying a moderate degree of attention will generally perceive the difference between three stripes and four."
- Distinctive use: The court recognised that Thom Browne’s use of the four-stripe motif had become well-established and independent of Adidas’s branding. The four-stripe design was found to be a distinctive element of Thom Browne’s brand identity.
- Brand dilution: Adidas’s argument of brand dilution was similarly dismissed. The court noted that the clear visual differences between the three and four stripes, combined with the differing price points and target markets, minimised the likelihood of harm to Adidas’s trademarks.
Broader implications
The decision highlights the importance of context in determining consumer confusion and market overlap, reaffirming the principle that trademarks must be evaluated in relation to their specific market and consumer context.
For brands like Thom Browne, the decision reinforces the ability to establish a brand identity despite an overlap in design elements of existing trademarks. For Adidas, the case serves as a reminder that, despite the ubiquity of its three-stripe design, it cannot necessarily monopolise the use of stripes on clothing and footwear (as it is sometimes accused of seeking to do).
How can we help?
If you require or need any advice on any intellectual property or trademark issues please contact please contact either James Sarjantson on 0113 201 0401 – ku.oc1737649332.fcl@1737649332nostn1737649332ajras1737649332j1737649332 or Thomas Taylor on 0113 204 0407 – ku.oc1737649332.fcl@1737649332rolya1737649332tt1737649332.
This article was written by Danielle Lynn, a trainee solicitor in LCF Law’s Commercial team.
