This browser is not actively supported anymore. For the best passle experience, we strongly recommend you upgrade your browser.

Search our site

Viewpoints

| 2 minute read

Position marks under pressure: Adidas loses appeal in Thom Browne stripe dispute

The Court of Appeal has delivered another setback to Adidas in its long-running trademark battle with fashion designer Thom Browne, upholding a High Court decision that invalidated several of Adidas’ position trademarks protecting its iconic three-stripe logo. This ruling highlights the challenges brands face when seeking to protect minimalist design elements through non-traditional trademarks. 

Dissecting the decision

Central to the dispute were six position trademarks registered by Adidas, each depicting three vertical stripes placed along garments. The High Court declared these marks invalid, finding that they lacked the clarity and precision required under UK and EU trademark law. Specifically, discrepancies between the visual representation of the stripes and their written descriptions rendered the marks ambiguous. 

For example, one mark was described in the following terms: “…the stripes running down substantially the whole length of the outer lateral surface of the sleeves, legs and/or trunks of the goods…”. The visual illustration, however, was restricted to a zip up long-sleeve jacket with the stripes running down one sleeve from the edge of the collar to the cuff. There was no clarity on the position of the mark on trousers, short sleeve or sleeveless tops. 

The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that such ambiguity fails the identification requirements under the Trade Marks Act 1994.

Key takeaways for brands

  1. Precision is paramount – position marks must be clearly defined both visually and descriptively. Any ambiguity, especially where the description allows for multiple interpretations, can be fatal to registrability.
  2. Distinctiveness must be evident – the court reaffirmed that even longstanding use does not guarantee protection if the mark lacks inherent or acquired distinctiveness. The average consumer must be able to identify the mark as an indicator of origin.
  3. Non-traditional marks face greater scrutiny – position marks, like patterns or shapes, are inherently more vulnerable. This case highlights the importance of robust evidence of use and consumer recognition when seeking to enforce or defend such marks.
  4. Comparative analysis matters – the court’s emphasis on the visual differences between Thom Browne’s four-stripe design and Adidas’ three-stripe logo shows that infringement claims must be grounded in a realistic assessment of consumer perception, not just brand legacy.
  5. Global strategy requires local precision – Adidas’ losses in the UK, EU, US, and Dutch courts suggest that a global brand protection strategy must be tailored to local legal standards. What works in one jurisdiction may not in another.

Looking ahead

As the fashion industry continues to embrace subtle and minimalist branding, the legal threshold for protecting such elements is rising. For IP practitioners and brand owners, this case reinforces the fundamental principle that enforceable trade marks rest on clarity of definition, distinctiveness in design and the way consumers perceive the mark.  

Tags

disputes, fashion and luxury, intellectual property, articles