Court Unveils Major adidas Defeat in UK Stripe Wars Case

The Court of Appeal has handed adidas another major defeat in its long-running “stripe wars.” The court upheld the High Court’s decision to invalidate six adidas three-stripe position marks in the UK. As a result, the ruling now sets stricter limits on how brands protect minimalist trade marks. In fact, the adidas Stripe Wars Court Ruling marks a key shift for trademark protection standards.

What the Court of Appeal decided

On October 23, 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed adidas’ appeal in the Thom Browne v adidas case. The court agreed that six adidas stripe registrations failed important legal requirements under UK trade mark law. The adidas Stripe Wars Court Ruling thus upheld the High Court’s findings against adidas.

Judges ruled that the registrations did not clearly define a single sign. They also found that the marks lacked enough clarity and precision on the official register.

However, the court did not revisit issues like distinctiveness, genuine use, or infringement. Earlier findings remained unchanged. That means Thom Browne’s four-stripe designs still do not infringe adidas’ branding, while adidas’ three stripes still remain distinctive in principle.

Background of the dispute

The case started in 2021 when Thom Browne challenged 16 adidas UK stripe registrations. The brand argued that the marks lacked proper registrability, distinctiveness, and genuine use.

At the same time, adidas claimed Thom Browne’s four-stripe branding infringed its rights and created passing off.

In 2024, the High Court invalidated eight of the 16 adidas marks. Still, the court rejected most arguments against distinctiveness and non-use. It also dismissed adidas’ infringement claims because consumers could clearly tell the difference between three stripes and Thom Browne’s thicker four-stripe designs.

adidas later appealed only six of those invalidated position marks.

Why the stripe marks failed

The courts focused mainly on two legal issues: whether the marks represented a single sign and whether the registrations were clear enough.

No clearly defined single sign

The disputed registrations showed three stripes on sleeves, trouser legs, or garment sides. The written descriptions used broad wording like “one third or more of the length.” According to the court, that wording created too much flexibility. The marks could appear in different positions, lengths, and placements across garments. Because of this, the judges ruled the registrations covered multiple possible designs instead of one clearly defined sign.

Lack of clarity and precision

The court also found problems between the drawings and written descriptions. For example, the images showed fixed stripe placements, while the wording allowed many different variations not shown in the illustrations. The court said this created uncertainty about what adidas actually protected in the context of the adidas Stripe Wars Court Ruling.

Judges also noted that the registrations did not fully lock down color placement and proportions with enough precision. As a result, the court concluded that the marks failed the clarity and precision standards required under trade mark law.

Why the ruling matters

The decision creates an important warning for brands that rely on simple graphic elements like stripes, tabs, stitching, or bands. The adidas Stripe Wars Court Ruling therefore has wider implications for minimalist branding practices.

The court made it clear that companies cannot file one broad registration to cover many possible design variations. Instead, brands must define position marks carefully and precisely.

The ruling also confirms that courts will closely compare images and written descriptions together. If the wording extends far beyond the illustration, the registration may fail.

Impact on adidas and other brands

For adidas, the decision means the loss of six UK stripe position marks and another setback in its global trade mark strategy.

For the wider fashion and footwear industry, the case now acts as a leading UK example for minimalist branding protection. It shows that simple design elements can still qualify as trade marks, but only when brands define them with clear and narrow boundaries. The ruling also signals that courts will not allow companies to claim overly broad ownership over common design spaces through vague position mark filings.