Adidas has commenced trade mark infringement proceedings in Australia against fashion retailer White Fox over its use of four parallel stripes on clothing. It is the latest dispute to test how far adidas can prevent third parties from using stripe designs which come close to its well-known three-stripe branding.
The proceedings were commenced in September 2026, with adidas alleging that White Fox’s four-stripe designs are “substantially identical with or otherwise deceptively similar” to its registered three-stripe marks. White Fox denies infringement. At the first hearing on 9 October, its lawyers indicated that it would argue that similar decorative stripes are used by other fashion retailers. Its formal defence has not yet been filed.
At first sight, the case might appear to turn on a simple distinction between three stripes and four. However, the position is more nuanced.
The way the stripes are used matters
Adidas’s case is not limited to the similarity between the respective stripe designs. It also alleges that White Fox promoted its four-stripe clothing using images of models wearing genuine adidas products. According to adidas, this could lead consumers to believe that the businesses are associated or that adidas has approved the White Fox designs.
Adidas further alleges that, after proceedings began, an image showing pink Adidas shoes was altered: first by removing one stripe and later all three. Those allegations have not been decided.
The dispute is a useful reminder that trade mark infringement does not necessarily turn on a side-by-side comparison alone. How a sign is used and presented to consumers may also be important.
Adidas and the Thom Browne four-stripe dispute
The case inevitably recalls adidas’s long-running disputes with US fashion house Thom Browne over its four-bar designs.
In the US, a New York jury found in favour of Thom Browne in January 2023 on adidas’s remaining trade mark infringement and dilution claims. adidas later sought to reopen the case after previously undisclosed emails emerged during the related UK litigation. That application failed, and the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the decision in April 2026.
The UK proceedings also went against adidas. In 2024, the High Court dismissed its infringement and passing-off claims and held that eight adidas registrations challenged by Thom Browne were invalid on registrability grounds.
Adidas appealed in relation to six of those registrations, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in October 2025. The difficulty lay in the scope of the registrations: their representations and descriptions allowed too much variation and did not identify a single, sufficiently clear and precise sign.
Related proceedings have also taken place before the EUIPO, in the Netherlands and before the EU General Court.
Is four enough to distinguish three?
The Thom Browne decisions do not determine this current case. Different registrations are involved, and the particular designs, products and circumstances of use will need to be considered.
There is also an important Australian dimension. Reports refer to an earlier case in which adidas successfully challenged four-stripe designs used by Pacific Brands on footwear.
The White Fox dispute may therefore provide further guidance on the difficult dividing line between a distinctive brand asset and a decorative feature which others remain free to use.
Trade mark lessons for fashion brand owners
First, precision matters. Where protection is sought for a relatively simple visual feature, the registration must identify clearly what is protected. The UK Thom Browne litigation shows the difficulty of registrations which seek to cover too many variations.
Second, small differences may not be enough. Adding another stripe or design element does not automatically avoid infringement. The overall impression, the goods and the context in which the sign is used may all be relevant.
Whether White Fox’s four stripes fall on the right side of the line remains to be decided. The outcome will be worth watching, particularly for businesses which rely on simple design elements as part of their branding.
For brand owners, it also underlines the importance of having a trade mark strategy that keeps pace as the brand develops.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]