Adidas and the Stripe Wars: Struggling to Draw the Line of Defense?

Oct 25, 2024

•

5 min read

Qazi

Adidas, the global sportswear brand, is known not just for its three stripes on the track but also for its endless courtroom battles. Over the years, Adidas has taken legal action to protect its distinctive three-stripe design, filing cases against brands across the fashion industry, from high-street fashion to luxury labels. These legal battles are not just about preserving its brand identity; they represent an attempt to maintain control over the design element Adidas believes defines its brand. Yet, as the list of lawsuits grows, a question remains: at what point does defending the three stripes go too far?

H&M vs. Adidas: The Longest Stripe Battle in Fashion History

Adidas’s dispute with Swedish retailer H&M, starting in 1997, spanned nearly 25 years. H&M’s “Work Out” collection included vertical stripes, which Adidas argued were confusingly similar to its own. Despite H&M’s efforts to differentiate, the courts sided with Adidas multiple times, reinforcing the idea that stripes on sportswear could create brand confusion. However, in 2022, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled that H&M’s use of stripes did not infringe on Adidas’s trademark, recognizing the public’s ability to tell the two brands apart.

Thom Browne: Luxury Meets the Three Stripes

In another case, Adidas targeted the luxury brand Thom Browne, which used four stripes. Adidas argued that Browne’s design resembled its three-stripe logo. But Browne countered that its use of stripes in high fashion, separate from sportswear, was distinctive. In 2023, a jury ruled in favor of Browne, noting Adidas had delayed filing the complaint and that Browne’s brand catered to a different market.

Isabel Marant and Sandro: Another Loss in the Stripe Wars

In 2018, Adidas filed yet another lawsuit, this time targeting French fashion labels Isabel Marant and Sandro, which had incorporated stripe patterns into their designs. Adidas argued these designs could lead to consumer confusion, claiming a resemblance to its three-stripe logo. However, in 2023, the French courts ruled in favor of Marant and Sandro, asserting that their stripes were distinguishable from Adidas’s sports-focused designs.

This ruling was another setback for Adidas, suggesting that courts were increasingly reluctant to support Adidas’s claims of exclusivity over stripes, especially when the products, markets, and consumer bases were not directly comparable.

The Question of Monopolistic Behavior

Adidas’s intense protection of its stripes has led some to accuse the brand of monopolistic behavior. Critics argue that Adidas’s cases, especially those involving brands that use more than three stripes or that operate in different markets, go beyond protecting a trademark and instead show an attempt to control a basic design element. Stripes, after all, are a simple and commonly used feature in fashion, and many in the industry argue that such a basic design should not be monopolized by one brand.

By pursuing these cases, Adidas risks the perception of being overly controlling, which could ultimately harm its brand image. Many wonder if it is wise for Adidas to spend so heavily on cases that may be viewed as trying to monopolize a pattern rather than protect a unique design.

Balancing Brand Protection with Realistic Boundaries

For Adidas, defending the three stripes has cost millions of dollars and brought significant public scrutiny. While the desire to protect brand identity is understandable, these lawsuits suggest a need for balance. Litigation should ideally be a last resort, used in clear cases of infringement rather than stretched to cover all possible stripe designs. Protecting a brand involves not just court cases but also building and maintaining strong consumer loyalty. The expenses tied up in continuous litigation may be better spent on reinforcing Adidas’s market position through innovative designs and consumer engagement.

Lawyers and advisors at Adidas might benefit from focusing on cases where there is a real risk of consumer confusion and the products are genuinely similar. Protecting the stripes in these situations makes sense. However, targeting every brand that uses multiple stripes could actually weaken the identity Adidas aims to protect and risk changing its brand image from one of strength to one of overreach.

Conclusion: A Stripe Too Far?

Adidas’s trademark disputes illustrate the challenges of brand protection in the fast-evolving fashion industry. Its push to control stripe designs has brought both victories and defeats, with a recent trend of unfavourable rulings suggesting that courts may be rethinking Adidas’s approach. Rather than pursuing a stripe monopoly, Adidas could focus on clearer cases of brand confusion and let go of disputes where the similarity is less evident.

While Adidas has drawn a line with its three stripes, it may be time to reconsider the strategy before it runs out of lines to defend.

Sources:

Adidas Fashion Law Trademark

Lux Juris