The legal battle between Adidas and Thom Browne over stripe trademarks intensifies in London’s High Court, with significant implications ahead.
The legal dispute between Adidas and Thom Browne over the use of striped trademarks reached London with a hearing in the High Court last Wednesday. Adidas seeks to remove Thom Browne’s products featuring its characteristic four-stripe motif from the UK market, claiming they could confuse consumers.
Thom Browne argues that Adidas’ actions to protect its three-stripe mark, which has peacefully coexisted with Browne’s four-stripe motif for over a decade, exceed the bounds of traditional trademarks. According to court documents, Thom Browne contended that there is no evidence of consumer confusion, as those who know Thom Browne’s products identify them as such, and the same goes for Adidas.
Thom Browne’s four-stripe motif originated more than 15 years ago after Adidas requested a change from its three-stripe design. Since then, Browne has developed his business into a renowned international design label without complaints from Adidas.
Additionally, Thom Browne argues that Adidas is attempting to monopolize an abstract concept of three stripes, which is vague and encompasses multiple designs already common in products from various brands like Gucci, Moncler, and Tommy Hilfiger, among others. Despite numerous lawsuits by Adidas on both sides of the Atlantic, there has yet to be evidence of consumer confusion.
The trial in London, expected to conclude next week, comes amid several legal setbacks for Adidas in Europe and the US. This year, the European Union Intellectual Property Office rejected Adidas’ efforts to block the registration of Thom Browne’s multi-stripe tape in the EU. Moreover, in the US, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a verdict that found Browne’s use of four stripes does not infringe Adidas’ three-stripe trademark.
In response to Adidas’ accusations, Thom Browne CEO Rodrigo Bazan stated that they do not need Adidas’ reputation to drive their business and that there is no significant commercial intent behind their range of compression products. The dispute is ongoing, and the outcome in London could influence future decisions in this prolonged legal battle.
