Adidas Sues Australian Fashion Brand White Fox Over Four-Stripe Design

Adidas has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in Australia’s Federal Court against White Fox Boutique, a popular Sydney-based online fashion retailer known for its popularity among teenagers. The sportswear giant alleges that White Fox’s use of four parallel stripes on clothing items is deceptively similar to Adidas’s iconic three-stripe trademark, a design element the company has protected for more than 70 years. The case illustrates why trademark owners must actively police their marks and why businesses should think carefully before adopting designs that closely resemble established brands.

The Dispute

Adidas claims that White Fox has been promoting and selling clothing featuring four parallel stripes of equal width in a contrasting color since March 2026. The products at issue include shorts, track pants, and tracksuits displayed in bus advertisements, bus stop signage, and social media campaigns. According to court filings, Adidas contacted White Fox in March requesting that the retailer remove the garments and stop using the four-stripe design. White Fox declined and continues to sell the products.

Adidas also alleges that White Fox used genuine Adidas shoes alongside its own clothing in promotional material, creating a misleading association between the two companies that could damage Adidas’s reputation. The matter is set for hearing in early 2027.

A Trademark With Deep Roots

The three-stripe design has been synonymous with Adidas since the company’s founding in 1949. Founder Adolf Dassler reportedly acquired the logo from Finnish brand Karhu in exchange for two bottles of whiskey and the equivalent of roughly 1,600 euros. The mark was officially trademarked in 1952, and Adidas has used it in Australia for more than 65 years. The company has a long history of aggressively enforcing this trademark around the world.

In 2013, Adidas successfully sued Pacific Brands in Australia over four-stripe designs on Dunlop and Grosby shoes, with the court finding several of those designs to be deceptively similar. However, the outcomes have not always favored Adidas. In the United States, a jury sided with designer Thom Browne in a similar four-stripe dispute, and Thom Browne later succeeded in having the Adidas three-stripe trademark declared invalid in the United Kingdom. White Fox’s defense argues that the four stripes are purely decorative rather than a trademark, pointing to similar designs sold by other retailers including Princess Polly, Glassons, and Shein.

Key Takeaway for Business Owners

This case offers two important lessons. First, if you own a trademark, consistent enforcement is essential. Failing to challenge similar marks can weaken your rights over time and make future enforcement significantly more difficult. Second, if you are launching a new product, do not assume that adding or subtracting a small design element from an established mark will protect you from liability. As one trademark expert observed in connection with this case, adding a stripe is neither a complete defense to a trademark claim nor automatic evidence of infringement.

The safest approach is to conduct a thorough trademark clearance search and consult with a qualified trademark attorney before adopting any design that could be perceived as similar to an existing mark.

If you have questions about protecting your trademark or need help evaluating whether a design could create confusion in the marketplace, schedule a free consultation with Diorio IP Law Group to discuss your options.