Adidas sues Australian teen brand White Fox over stripe designs

Another day, another stripe case for Adidas.

The German-based brand is suing Australian label White Fox over stripe designs described as “substantially identical with or otherwise deceptively similar” to Adidas trademark products, the Daily Mail reported.

According to the publication, Adidas accused White Fox of rejecting its repeated requests to stop selling the clothes. Adidas said its representatives then purchased a dozen of the infringing items and photographed the brand’s widespread advertisements across Sydney’s bus network, submitting both as evidence to the court. The German brand also accused White Fox of further confusing customers by promoting pictures of its socks and pants with models wearing three-striped Adidas shoes at the same time.

Adidas has asked White Fox to stop selling the products, declare it broke the law, and pay its profits on the products plus damages, interests and costs. The official claim was first filed in September at the Federal Court of Australia under general federal law and intellectual property jurisdiction, and updated on October 1.

Launched in 2013, White Fox has become popular among teenagers. The brand is mainly known for its bubble-font logo and colorful hoodies and sweatpants.

The Federal Court case has been logged under Adidas Australia & Anor v White Fox. Neither Adidas nor White Fox has released a public statement yet. The first case management hearing was scheduled for Friday. Justice Ian Jackman, who happens to be the brother of actor Hugh Jackman, will oversee the case.

A three-stripe history

Adidas has a long history of suing brands over its signature three-stripe logo. For reference, between 1995 and 2008, the company had “pursued over 325 infringement matters involving the Three-Stripe mark in the United States,” including 35 separate lawsuits and 45 settlements with the alleged infringers, according to its court filing against Payless Shoesource in 2008.

In Australia, Adidas notably pursued a trademark case against Pacific Brands in 2013 over the design of sports shoes, which featured four stripes along the sides of the shoe. The justice overseeing the case held that Adidas’ three-stripe marks are defined by three contrasting‑colour stripes on footwear. While a well-known trademark makes it easier to find that two marks are confusingly similar, it doesn’t make four‑stripe marks automatically infringing. He found four Pacific Brands shoes infringed due to confusing overall stripe impression; eight others did not, lacking a clear contrasting‑stripe effect.

More recently, Adidas accused Thom Browne of infringing its signature stripe trademarks through similar designs used on activewear. A jury later ruled for Thom Browne, and that verdict was upheld by the district court. On April 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit confirmed it would not reopen the case, affirming the 2023 jury finding that Thom Browne was not liable for trademark infringement.