Steve Madden Seeks to Break Adidas’s Stripe Stronghold

In a high-profile legal confrontation shaking up the footwear industry, Steve Madden has filed a lawsuit against Adidas, accusing the German sportswear giant of using anticompetitive tactics to monopolize the use of stripes in shoe design. The case, filed in May 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, centers on whether Adidas can claim exclusive rights over all striped designs in the footwear market—a question with wide-reaching implications for fashion brands and designers alike.

At the heart of the lawsuit are two Steve Madden sneaker models: the Viento, featuring two nonparallel bands, and the Janos, which incorporates a "K" shaped band design. According to court documents, Adidas objected to these designs, arguing that they could confuse consumers and infringe on Adidas’s federally protected three-stripe trademark Adidas has a long history of defending its iconic three parallel stripes, which are recognized globally and have been the subject of numerous legal battles.

Steve Madden Viento White Multi

Steve Madden, however, contends that its designs bear no resemblance to Adidas’s trademarked stripes and that variations of two-band motifs are common throughout the industry. The complaint includes examples from other brands, such as Converse, Veja, and Tommy Hilfiger, all of which use two-band designs. Madden’s attorneys argue that Adidas should not be allowed to claim a monopoly over all stripes, bars, or bands on footwear, regardless of their orientation or number.

Janos White Leather

This is not the first time the two companies have clashed over stripes. In 2002, Adidas sued Steve Madden over shoes with two and four parallel stripes, leading to a confidential settlement in 2003. The current lawsuit, however, is a proactive move by Steve Madden, seeking a declaratory judgment that its Viento and Janos designs do not infringe on Adidas’s trademarks and do not constitute unfair competition.

The lawsuit also accuses Adidas of employing intimidation tactics and manipulating the legal system to stifle competition. Steve Madden alleges that Adidas uses the threat of litigation to pressure competitors into avoiding any designs that might remotely resemble its sneaker lineup, effectively wielding its trademark as a "legal sledgehammer" rather than a tool for fair competition.

This legal battle highlights a broader debate in the fashion world: where is the line between protecting intellectual property and stifling creative freedom? Adidas’s aggressive trademark enforcement has led to similar disputes with other brands, including Thom Browne, where courts ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, finding no infringement.

For Adidas, the timing is challenging. The company is still recovering from the fallout of its Yeezy partnership and faces increasing competition from brands like Nike, On, and Hoka. If the court sides with Steve Madden, it could set a precedent limiting how far brands can go in claiming ownership over common design elements like stripes. Steve Madden is seeking a jury trial and a clear ruling that its designs do not violate Adidas’s trademarks. The outcome could reshape the boundaries of design protection in the footwear industry and influence how brands approach both inspiration and competition going forward.