Adidas sues White Fox over clothing with four-stripe design
Adidas has filed a lawsuit against Australian fast-fashion label White Fox for selling clothes with a four-striped design, arguing it infringes on its iconic three-striped trademark. The German sportswear giant claims White Fox has ignored repeated requests to stop since March, and is exploiting Adidas's "substantial and valuable reputation" to mislead consumers into thinking the brands are associated. This legal action underscores the importance brands place on protecting their distinctive visual identities.
Adidas has trademarked its three-striped design in Australia since 1957 and is seeking damages plus profits from White Fox's sales of items including sweatpants and lounge shorts. The case includes evidence that White Fox's advertisements featured people wearing genuine Adidas shoes, though these images were later digitally altered to remove stripes after court proceedings were lodged. White Fox, founded in 2013 by Greek-Australian couple Georgia and Daniel Contos, has grown substantially, generating AU$542m (£286m) in revenue in the 12 months to June 2025, a four-fold increase from 2022's AU$121m.
- Adidas sues Australian label White Fox over four-stripe design copying its trademark.
- White Fox digitally removed stripes from ads after court proceedings were filed.
- White Fox generated AU$542m revenue in 12 months to June 2025.
New here? Start with this
Adidas has trademarked its distinctive three-striped design since 1957, making it one of the most recognisable symbols in sportswear. The company argues that when competitors use similar stripe patterns on clothing, it creates confusion amongst consumers who might assume those products are made by or connected to Adidas. This principle underpins the lawsuit against White Fox, an Australian fast-fashion label.
White Fox has experienced substantial growth since its founding in 2013, particularly in the past few years, with revenue reaching hundreds of millions of pounds. Adidas contends that White Fox has deliberately adopted a four-stripe design on items such as loungewear and sweatpants, and claims the company ignored repeated requests to cease doing so. The case also includes allegations that White Fox used images of genuine Adidas products in marketing materials before digitally altering them.
The broader issue at stake is how brands protect their distinctive visual identities and whether newer companies can adopt similar design elements without infringing on established trademarks. Large corporations worldwide argue that their distinctive symbols represent years of investment and consumer recognition, and that allowing similar designs to proliferate undermines the value of those symbols. This reflects a wider tension in fashion and retail between protecting intellectual property and enabling fair competition in the market.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Adidas has built iconic brand recognition around its three-stripe design over nearly seventy years, creating substantial consumer association and valuable goodwill. The legal question centres not on whether White Fox uses precisely three stripes, but whether a similar stripe design on comparable clothing creates likelihood of confusion or exploits Adidas's reputation—and White Fox's decision to digitally alter advertisements after legal proceedings began suggests awareness that their four-stripe styling risked problematic associations. Trademark law exists precisely to protect such distinctive visual identities from dilution, especially when a competitor has ignored explicit warnings.
The case against
Whilst Adidas holds a trademark on three stripes, four stripes represents a meaningfully different visual design that functions as its own distinct aesthetic; the numerical difference is neither negligible nor invisible to consumers. Stripe patterns are common design elements across fashion generally, and should not be monopolised because one brand popularised them—confusing Adidas sportswear with White Fox's fast-fashion loungewear requires consumer confusion the facts do not substantiate, particularly given their distinct market positions. Overly broad enforcement of stripe-based trademarks would chill legitimate fashion innovation and create perverse incentives for brands to claim ownership of basic design motifs rather than truly distinctive creative work.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by BBC World as “Adidas sues Australian label White Fox over four stripes design”.