Adidas’ Recent Trial Loss Unlikely to Deter Brand Enforcement

Adidas’ Recent Trial Loss Unlikely to Deter Brand Enforcement

Adidas AG‘s latest jury demo loss to the luxury style brand name Thom Browne Inc. about a trademark dispute regarding the “three-stripes” emblem is unlikely to chasten the German sportswear giant’s aggressive trademark enforcement strategy.

The 8-person jury in Manhattan federal court docket took just two hours on Jan. 12 to return a decisive verdict finding that Thom Browne’s use of two and 4 stripes on satisfies and other high-conclude vogue merchandise did not infringe or dilute Adidas’ emblems, which center on a a few-stripe motif.

While Adidas may perhaps shed some instances, its expansive method to trademark enforcement however has strategic and lawful reasoning at the rear of it and is not likely to change, said Alexandra Roberts, an intellectual assets law professor at Northeastern College.

“One loss, even 1 definitely high-profile reduction, is not going to do considerably to transfer the needle on that strategy,” Roberts said. “That’s continue to heading to be the way they solution points.”

“I do not see this dissuading them because what they nevertheless want to do, as considerably as policing their mark goes, is to preserve as a lot of makes away from using stripes as doable,” reported trademark legal professional Josh Gerben of Gerben Perrott PLLC.

Given that 2008, Adidas has filed additional than 90 lawsuits and reached at least 200 settlement agreements related to its 3-stripes trademark, courtroom filings in the circumstance show. The corporation has 24 registered logos related to the stripes, which it initial began putting on footwear marketed in the US in the 1950s.

The corporation has brawled with many brand names employing striped outfits, including Forever 21, J. Crew Group Inc., Skechers Usa Inc., and Puma SE. In a 2008 circumstance in opposition to the price reduction shoe keep Payless, a jury awarded Adidas a $305 million verdict that was later on diminished to $65 million.

Adidas has confronted some losses in international courts. In 2019, the corporation shed a trademark struggle in Japan against a footwear company providing shoes with two stripes, and it was rebuffed in a European court docket in a circumstance involving a company selling sneakers with 3 stripes.

Following the Thom Browne verdict, an Adidas spokesperson stated the business “will go on to vigilantly enforce our intellectual assets, which include submitting any acceptable appeals.”

‘Natural Bias’

The dispute with Thom Browne dates to 2007, when the large-fashion brand began working with three parallel stripes on a jacket structure.

Following discussions with Adidas, Thom Browne switched to a four-stripe layout and designed a pink, white, and blue-striped structure acknowledged as the Grosgrain Signature.

The brands co-existed peacefully right until 2018, when Thom Browne started growing into energetic use, inking a offer with Spanish soccer megaclub FC Barcelona and collaborating with the NBA’s Cleveland Cavaliers. Adidas sued in 2021.

Gerben claimed it would be complicated to phone Adidas a “trademark bully” in this circumstance, thinking about Thom Browne’s stature as a important luxurious model. But he stated juries can have a “natural bias versus giving a verdict to a huge multinational corporation” in this kind of case.

At demo, Thom Browne argued that the vogue label operated in an totally various current market: a pair Thom Browne sweatpants fees $650, whilst a very similar item from Adidas is considerably less than $100. Through closing arguments, Thom Browne’s attorney produced a closing enchantment to the jury, indicating that Adidas “does not possess stripes.”

These arguments may perhaps present a blueprint for models dealing with issues from Adidas, said Michael Palmisciano, an mental property lawyer at Sullivan & Worcester, but it’s tricky to attract wide conclusions from a solitary case, especially a single as truth-certain as this.

Palmisciano noted that the maximize in collaborations amongst large-manner and mass-market brand names has come with improved lawful threats. A new product line from a collaboration could pose a threat to competition in their respective markets.

“Even if you are in the ideal, and eventually litigate a circumstance to this summary and you get, that is an high priced endeavor,” he mentioned.


The worry among significant brand names is that without aggressive prosecution, a the moment-unique trademark may possibly reduce its worth as far more and far more 3rd parties begin to use identical wanting marks. The close outcome of lax enforcement in the brief phrase could be a mark which is harder to shield down the line.

Katie Brown, an assistant professor of sports administration at Texas Tech University, reported that in the long operate, a model like Adidas is better off applying a proactive strategy, even if it faces some losses.

Brown’s exploration focuses on sports branding, and she co-authored a paper previous 12 months examining Adidas’ trademark safety method. She located that Adidas was “willing to go after lengthy litigation with almost any probable opponent,” which resulted in a lot more settlements.

“They have the revenue driving them to shield their mark, and they are heading to carry on to go after it,” she mentioned. “Other firms or smaller merchants really do not have the funds to go all the way to demo.”

When Adidas has proactively shielded its 3-stripes mark for many years, the American shoe enterprise Converse, known for the legendary Chuck Taylor All Star shoe, peaceful its trademark enforcement in the late 1990s and early 2000s whilst facing bankruptcy.

Brown’s investigation found that Converse’s lack of trademark litigation over that period harmed its potential to enforce its legal rights later on. Above that time, opponents like Walmart Inc., Skechers, and New Harmony Athletics Inc. began marketing equivalent-looking shoes.

In 2016, the US International Trade Fee dominated that different aspects of the Chuck Taylor shoe, such as its upper and rubber toe, weren’t protectable underneath trademark regulation.

Despite the fact that an appeals court reversed that ruling, the manufacturer has shed some of its distinctiveness, Brown said.

“It was far too tiny, also late.”