The Iconic Three Stripes
Written by: Delia Allen
The iconic three stripes that the public attaches to the German brand, Adidas, have been the subject of multiple legal disputes. Adidas has taken action against many growing fashion brands for trademark infringement involving the brand’s trademarked three iconic lines. Under the Lanham Act, trademark infringement requires Adidas to show that it has federal trademark ownership of the three-stripe mark and that any similar design is likely to confuse consumers about the source of the product. 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (2022). Trademark infringement occurs when another company uses a design or mark that is likely to confuse consumers as to the affiliation of the source of the product. Id.
In a recent case, Adidas alleged that Thom Browne infringed on Adidas’s trademarked three-stripe design. Adidas Am., Inc. v. Thom Browne, Inc., 742 F. Supp. 3d at 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2024). Here, the court considered internal email conversations between Thom Browne employees discussing confusion between their designs and Adidas’. Id. In Adidas v. Thom Browne, the court recognized that Adidas’s three-stripe mark is both strong for purposes of the likelihood-of-confusion analysis and sufficiently famous to support a claim for dilution by blurring or tarnishment under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), rather than traditional infringement under § 1114. See id. at 365. The court ultimately found that there was no misconduct that tarnished the mark, and the jury returned a verdict finding that Thom Browne was not liable for trademark infringement, and on appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict. Id. at 366.
Adidas has also filed suit against Fashion Nova, accusing the company of misconduct and unethical behavior over trademark infringement. Adidas Am., Inc. v. Fashion Nova, Inc., 341 F.R.D. 263 (D. Or. 2022). The court ruled on procedural discovery issues and did not decide on the substantive trademark issues that Adidas was underlining, therefore there has not been a ruling on the alleged infringement. Id.
In a different case, Adidas brought claims against Skechers for infringing on their three-stripe mark. The court found that minor differences, such as stripe thickness and placement on the shoe, can still create consumer confusion and may be sufficient to constitute infringement. Adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA Inc., 890 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2016). Similarly, Adidas claimed that Target sold shoes featuring stripe designs that created enough consumer confusion to divert consumer attention, thereby allowing the court to enforce infringement. Adidas-Salomon AG v. Target Corp., 228 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (D. Or. 2002). In Adidas v. Target, the court held that there was a likelihood of confusion between Adidas’s three-strip mark and the stripe designs on Target’s shoes. 228 F. Supp. 2d at 1194. Therefore, Adidas was entitled to relief on its trademark infringement claim. Id.
Throughout these various lawsuits, it is highlighted that an important aspect of determining infringement is consumer perception. See 742 F. Supp. 3d at 365. Courts deciding Adidas cases have considered factors such as the similarity of the design, the strength of the famous three stripes, and the intent of the defendant’s brand, including whether the defendant intended to associate with Adidas’s famous mark. See 341 F.R.D. at 263-65. These cases demonstrate that confusion and dilution of the three stripes trademark grant Adidas broad protection against infringement to preserve the mark’s distinctiveness. See 228 F. Supp. 2d at 1198.
Image source: JCPenney, https://www.jcpenney.com/g/shoes?brand=adidas&id=dept20000018 (last visited Mar. 3, 2026).
