Fashion isn't usually a blood sport, but walk into a Manhattan courtroom and you'll see things differently. Specifically, look at the 2023 legal brawl between Adidas and Thom Browne. It’s basically the ultimate showdown over who owns a shape. We’re talking about the case of the stripes, a multi-year litigation saga that forced everyone from high-end designers to sneakerheads to ask: Can a brand really trademark a line? Or four?
The whole thing started because Adidas felt Browne was stepping on their toes. Literally.
Adidas has used its famous three-stripe logo since the late 1940s. It's iconic. It’s on everything from Run-D.M.C.’s sneakers to World Cup jerseys. So, when Thom Browne—a luxury designer known for shrunken gray suits and a preppy, avant-garde aesthetic—started putting four horizontal bars on his high-end cardigans and sweatpants, the German sportswear giant lost its cool. They claimed it was "confusingly similar." Browne argued it was just a common design element.
It sounds petty. It wasn't. Millions of dollars and the future of design "freedom" were on the line.
What Really Happened in the Case of the Stripes?
To understand why this was such a big deal, you have to look at how trademarks work. Usually, a trademark protects a logo so consumers don't get confused. If you buy a shirt with a swoosh, you know it's Nike. Adidas argued that their "Three-Stripe Mark" is so famous that any similar parallel lines on clothing would make people think it’s an Adidas collaboration.
Thom Browne didn't start with four stripes. Back in the early 2000s, he actually used three stripes on some of his pieces. Adidas complained way back in 2007, and Browne—then a much smaller fish—agreed to add a fourth stripe to avoid a fight. For over a decade, that was the status quo. Browne used four, Adidas used three. Peace in our time, right?
Not exactly.
🔗 Read more: Stock Market Today Hours: Why Timing Your Trade Is Harder Than You Think
As Browne expanded into luxury activewear and signed a massive deal with FC Barcelona, Adidas decided the "four-bar" design was getting too close to their turf. They sued in 2021. They wanted over $860,000 in damages and $7 million in "disgorged profits." That's a lot of cardigans.
The trial was a circus. Thom Browne himself showed up to court every day wearing his signature shorts suit and high socks—one of which featured the four stripes in question. It was a walking exhibit. His defense was simple: "We aren't in the same league." Browne sells $2,000 blazers; Adidas sells $60 tracksuits. He argued that no one walks into a luxury boutique, sees a four-striped cashmere sweater, and thinks, "Oh, cool, new Adidas gear."
Why the Jury Sided With the Underdog
On January 12, 2023, the jury reached a verdict in less than three hours. They chose Browne.
It was a massive blow to Adidas. The jury basically said that the two brands serve different customers and operate in different price points. They didn't see a "likelihood of confusion." Honestly, it’s a win for designers everywhere who use basic geometric patterns. If Adidas had won, where would it stop? Could a brand trademark a circle? Two dots?
The case of the stripes highlighted a weird tension in the law. Adidas has spent decades and billions of dollars making three stripes mean "Adidas." They are incredibly aggressive about it. They’ve sued Tesla over a logo, they've sued Skechers, and they've sued Juicy Couture. They have to. In trademark law, if you don't defend your mark, you risk losing it. It’s a "use it or lose it" system.
But the court basically told Adidas that their "stripe-monopoly" has limits. You can't own every iteration of a parallel line, especially when the other guy is making "luxury" items that don't even look like gym wear.
💡 You might also like: Kimberly Clark Stock Dividend: What Most People Get Wrong
The Nuance of "Market Displacement"
One of the smartest things Browne’s legal team did was focus on the "sophisticated consumer." They argued that people who spend $1,000 on a designer hoodie are usually pretty aware of what they’re buying. They aren't "accidentally" buying Thom Browne thinking it’s a Three-Stripe hoodie from a clearance rack.
- Price Point Gap: Browne’s socks cost more than some Adidas shoes.
- Retail Environment: You find Browne in high-end department stores, not big-box sporting goods outlets.
- Branding Intent: Browne’s stripes are often asymmetrical or part of a "varsity" aesthetic that dates back to 1920s collegiate wear.
Adidas tried to counter this by pointing to their own high-fashion collabs. They work with Gucci. They work with Balenciaga. Because Adidas does play in the luxury space now, they argued that the lines are blurred. If Adidas can sell a $3,000 jacket with three stripes, then a $3,000 jacket with four stripes is definitely a problem. The jury just didn't buy it.
The Fallout: Is Anyone Safe?
Even though Browne won, the case of the stripes hasn't stopped the litigation. Adidas appealed, of course. In May 2024, an appeals court upheld the original win for Thom Browne, basically putting a nail in the coffin of this specific fight. But the precedent is shaky.
For small designers, this is a mixed bag. On one hand, it shows you can beat a giant. On the other hand, who has the money to fight Adidas in court for three years? Thom Browne is backed by the Zegna Group. He had the war chest to survive. Most independent labels would have just folded and changed their design the moment the first "cease and desist" letter arrived.
We’re seeing a shift in how "visual language" is policed. It’s not just about the logo anymore; it’s about the "vibe."
What Designers and Brands Should Learn
If you’re launching a brand, you can’t just ignore the giants. The case of the stripes proves that even if you think your work is "different enough," a multi-billion dollar corporation might disagree.
📖 Related: Online Associate's Degree in Business: What Most People Get Wrong
Look at the details. Browne’s victory hinged on his distinct brand identity. He had a consistent story—the "shrunken suit," the gray palette, the schoolboy aesthetic. He wasn't trying to be a sports brand. If a brand tries to use stripes and starts making performance cleats or basketball jerseys, they’re going to lose that fight every single time.
Critical Takeaways for Navigating Trademark Disputes
The legal landscape is messy. If you're looking at the case of the stripes and wondering how to protect your own creative work or understand the market, keep these points in mind.
- Context is King. A design doesn't exist in a vacuum. The court looks at where it's sold, how much it costs, and who is buying it. If your product is radically different in price and purpose, you have a stronger "fair use" or "non-infringement" argument.
- Document the "Why." Thom Browne was able to show that his stripes were inspired by varsity sweaters and classic tailoring, not by a desire to mimic Adidas. If you have a mood board or a design history that predates a conflict, keep it.
- The "Aggressor" Strategy. Understand that big brands like Adidas, Apple, or Disney aren't necessarily being "mean"—they are following a legal requirement to police their trademarks. If they let one brand use four stripes, it becomes harder for them to sue the next brand that uses three.
- Watch the Collateral. Trademark wins aren't just about the money. They’re about the right to keep selling your inventory. If Browne had lost, he might have had to destroy millions of dollars worth of stock. That's the real risk.
The case of the stripes is a reminder that in the world of fashion and business, the simplest designs are often the most hard-fought. You might see a few lines on a sleeve. A lawyer sees a battlefield.
To move forward in this landscape, whether you are a creator or a consumer, pay attention to "secondary meaning." That’s the legal term for when a symbol becomes so tied to a company that the symbol is the company. Adidas has successfully created secondary meaning for three stripes. Thom Browne proved that, for now, the world is big enough for a fourth.
Next Steps for Business Owners and Creatives:
Check your branding against the USPTO TESS database to see if your "simple" design elements are already heavily defended. If you're using geometric patterns, ensure your overall brand "trade dress"—the look and feel of your packaging and marketing—is distinct enough to pass the "sophisticated consumer" test. Consultation with a specialized IP attorney early on is cheaper than a three-year trial in Manhattan.