Tiger Doesn't Own All Stripes: Understanding the Trademark Battle Between Adidas and Thom Browne
The dispute between fashion powerhouses Adidas and Thom Browne over stripe designs reveals the intricacies of brand protection and the scope of trademarks based on common elements especially within the fashion world.
April 15, 2024 at 09:47 AM
8 minute read
Trademarks involving words or elements common in an industry are generally the most challenging trademarks to protect and enforce. This can be especially true in the fashion industry, where common features such as colors, designs, style, and patterns often play a crucial role in conveying brand identity and exclusivity. While combinations of these kinds of common elements may be capable of serving as trademarks, such trademarks can be challenging to register and to protect because the owner must show more to establish their distinctiveness. Even then, such marks are entitled to a narrower ambit of protection against marks made up of even quite similar elements. The dispute between fashion powerhouses Adidas and Thom Browne over stripe designs reveals the intricacies of brand protection and the scope of trademarks based on common elements especially within the fashion world.
In June 2021, more than a decade after it first sent a cease-and-desist letter complaining about Thom Browne's stripes design renowned sportswear giant, Adidas, filed suit against the luxury fashion brand in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution. The dispute centered on a venerable, inarguably simple, and widely used design: stripes. Specifically, Adidas objected to Thom Browne's use of a four-stripe design on its clothing and footwear, which Adidas alleged bore a striking resemblance to its iconic three-stripe trademark. Adidas has been aggressive about protecting its three-stripe design; it holds a total of 24 U.S. federal registered trademark registrations for its three-stripe mark. In its complaint, Adidas also sought to enjoin Thom Browne from using, advertising, or selling apparel with the challenged four-stripe design.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Taking the Best' of Both Firms, Ballard Spahr and Lane Powell Officially Merge
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The New Rules of AI: Part 2—Designing and Implementing Governance Programs
- 2Plaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
- 3As Litigation Finance Industry Matures, Links With Insurance Tighten
- 4The Gold Standard: Remembering Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer
- 5NJ Supreme Court Clarifies Affidavit of Merit Requirement for Doctor With Dual Specialties
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.