Thom Browne wins adidas trademark appeal

Thom Browne, Inc has emerged victorious in a significant legal battle against adidas, successfully defending its trademark rights in the Court of Appeal. The court delivered its judgment on 23 October 2025, dismissing adidas’ appeal regarding the validity of its “three-stripe” trade marks and upholding a previous High Court ruling made by Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE in November 2024. This earlier judgment had invalidated eight of adidas’ trade marks and rejected its counterclaims, confirming that Thom Browne was entitled to sell goods bearing its distinctive 4-Bar Sign without infringing upon adidas’ registered marks or engaging in passing off.

Central to Thom Browne's argument was the assertion that several adidas trademark registrations, which pertained to so-called 'position marks', did not meet the necessary criteria for validity. The firm contended that the graphic representations combined with written descriptions included on the register incorrectly claimed protection over various signs, thereby lacking the clarity required under Section 1(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The High Court sided with Thom Browne, and the Court of Appeal has maintained this position in its latest ruling.

This legal confrontation is part of a broader, multi-national dispute between adidas and Thom Browne, which has spanned different courts and intellectual property registries across Europe and the USA since its inception in 2007. The dispute arose when adidas initially contacted Thom Browne concerning the use of a three-stripe design on jackets, following which Thom Browne modified the design by incorporating a fourth stripe.

Jeremy Hertzog, Partner and lead on the case at Mishcon de Reya, expressed the significance of the Court of Appeal’s decision, stating, "This is the first decision of its kind on 'position marks' in the Court of Appeal and provides helpful guidance on the fundamental requirements for trade mark registrations in this emerging area. The Court has balanced brand protection with ensuring fair competition and drawn a clear line by confirming registrations must be precise and unambiguous. Those seeking to claim protection over multiple different signs provide proprietors with an unfair competitive advantage and cannot be protected. We are delighted for our client."

Eleanor Wilson, an Associate at Mishcon de Reya, added further insight, remarking, “By reading the descriptions and looking at the representations together, it was clear to the Court of Appeal that what was claimed by adidas’ trade mark registrations was in fact capable of being understood as multiple different signs rather than variations on one. This case sets an important precedent that even if a brand's trade marks are highly distinctive or famous, this is not enough to save a registration, if that mark is imprecise.”

The Court of Appeal's ruling is expected to have lasting implications on trade mark law, particularly regarding the requirements for clarity and precision in trademark registrations, ensuring a fairer competitive landscape across the industry.