Battle of the Brands: Adidas and Thom Browne’s Fight for Striped Supremacy
Anthony Williams
Nov 25, 2024
5 min read
Updated: May 8
In a fashion industry highly focused on aesthetics, a good design is often regarded as self-expressive; however, even the simplicity of a stripe can lead to complex legal disputes. This issue was at the heart of a high-stakes trademark dispute between luxury designer Thom Browne and global sportswear giant Adidas.[1] Thom Browne, founded in 2001, is an American luxury brand whose ready-to-wear collection is made up of monochrome blazers, slacks, and ties, often competing with fashion houses like Burberry and Alexander McQueen.[2] Adidas, founded in 1949 and famously known for its iconic three-stripe logo affixed to its athletic and leisure wear, was displeased when Browne’s collection started featuring a four-stripe pattern on its activewear around 2007.[3]
Adidas and Thom Browne did not stitch this lawsuit together overnight—it was years in the making.[4] In 2007, Adidas contacted Browne, which at the time was using a three-horizontal bar design that Adidas believed was too similar to its three-stripe mark.[5] As a result, Browne switched to the four-horizontal bar design it currently uses on its clothing.[6] Between 2007 and 2018, the Thom Browne brand expanded from a boutique in Manhattan to being sold in over 300 global retail locations, venturing into clothing beyond formal business attire, such as athletic and leisure wear.[7] In June 2021, after many failed attempts at compromising with Browne since 2018, Adidas filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging Browne’s “Four-Bar Signature” design and its application to trademark its “Grosgrain” design—a pattern of red, white, and blue stripes—infringed upon Adidas’ trademarked three-stripe mark.[8] Adidas attempted to settle out-of-court, but after many unsuccessful attempts, filed a 2021 trademark infringement, trade dilution, and unfair competition complaint against Browne, seeking approximately $900,000 in damages and $7 million in profits it alleges Browne attained.[9]
During the trial, Adidas presented evidence that nearly 30% of people surveyed associated Browne’s garments with Adidas.[10] In response, Browne’s counsel argued that the parties compete in "different worlds,” comparing a $50 pair of Adidas sweatpants to an almost $800 pair by Browne.[11] Browne’s legal counsel highlighted the difference in the two brands’ price and quality, asserting that Browne’s activewear is not intended for sports in the same way as Adidas’.[12] During closing arguments, Browne’s counsel told the jury that “Adidas does not own stripes.”[13] Ultimately, after a nine-day trial and three hours of deliberation, the jury ruled in favor of Browne, finding no trademark infringement or dilution.[14]
Despite Browne’s victory in the U.S., the trademark dispute persisted as Adidas brought the case to Germany, where it is headquartered, signaling that the legal battle was far from over.[15] On September 6, 2024, the LG Nuremberg-Fürth Regional Court dismissed Adidas’ claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition, ruling that consumer confusion was unlikely.[16] In its decision, the court relied on two factors: i) the distinct visual differences between Browne’s four-bar logo and Adidas’ three-stripe design, and ii) the attentiveness of Browne’s luxury clientele, who can readily distinguish between the two brands.[17] Browne's luxury price point targets consumers who can distinguish his brands from others.[18] The court further emphasized that Browne’s price point and the prominent “THOM BROWNE” branding on Browne’s website and affixed to its garments reduced any likelihood of confusion.[19]
Both the Southern District Court of New York and the German court ruled in Browne’s favor, citing the distinct visual characteristics of its four-bar logo design, luxury branding, and attentive consumer base, which collectively reduce confusion and avoid infringing on Adidas’ three-stripe trademark.[20] These court decisions highlight how differences in design, target audience, and presentation allow brands in the same industry to coexist within distinct niches.[21] This precedent reinforces the protection of distinctive designs, empowering smaller brands to assert their trademark rights in the face of larger competitors.[22] It also serves as a reminder of the critical need for thorough trademark searches early in the design process to avoid baseless infringement claims.[23]
[1]See Complaint at 1–5, Adidas Am., Inc. v. Thom Browne, Inc., No. 21-cv-05615 (S.D.N.Y. filed June 28, 2021).
