In the long contest between identity and imitation, Adidas has brought its trademarked three-stripe mark before Australia's Federal Court, arguing that Sydney fast-fashion retailer White Fox has crossed the line from aesthetic inspiration into deliberate infringement with its four-striped clothing designs. The dispute asks an enduring question of commerce and creativity: at what point does a stripe become a symbol, and when does borrowing become theft? With a trademark registered since 1957 and a rapidly ascending competitor generating over half a billion dollars in annual revenue, the case pl
Adidas sues White Fox over four-stripe design in Australian trademark battle
Sailing close to the wind with stripes and reputation
Mark
So Adidas is saying the four stripes are too close to their three stripes. But White Fox is arguing that stripes are just a common design element. How does a court actually decide where that line is?
Mimi
The trademark law looks at whether consumers would be confused—whether they'd think there's a connection between the brands. Adidas is saying White Fox is deliberately trying to look similar enough to benefit from Adidas's reputation. The fact that White Fox allegedly edited out the Adidas stripes from their own advertising after the lawsuit was filed suggests they understood the risk.
Luke
But here's what we don't know yet: whether a reasonable consumer actually confuses four stripes with three stripes, or whether the court will find that stripes are just a generic design feature in activewear. White Fox's argument about Cotton On and other brands using similar stripes—we haven't seen evidence of how similar those actually are. That's going to matter a lot.
Mark
White Fox has grown incredibly fast—from AU$121 million to AU$542 million in three years. Does that growth make them a bigger target for Adidas?
Mimi
It certainly makes the case higher stakes. Adidas is claiming White Fox is profiting from confusion with their brand. If White Fox is growing that fast, Adidas wants to stop it and recover those profits. The bigger White Fox gets, the more Adidas has to lose if they don't act.
Luke
Though we should note: Adidas hasn't proven any of that yet. They're alleging White Fox is trading on their reputation, but the court hasn't heard White Fox's full defence or seen the evidence tested. The 2013 case against Pacific Brands is precedent, but it's not the same situation—those were shoes, and the facts were different.
Mark
What happens if Adidas wins?
Mimi
White Fox would have to stop selling the four-striped designs and pay damages—potentially millions, given their revenue. It would be a significant blow to their product line and their brand identity. For Adidas, it's about protecting what they see as their distinctive mark.
Luke
And if White Fox wins, it signals that stripes are fair game in fashion—that you can't own a design element just because you've used it longer. That would be a bigger precedent for the whole industry.
Le Pouls
- Adidas claims White Fox has been selling four-striped clothing since at least March 2025, despite repeated legal warnings to stop — and alleges that after the lawsuit was filed, White Fox digitally altered product photos to obscure Adidas shoes visible in its own advertising.
- White Fox has grown from AU$121 million to AU$542 million in revenue in just three years, making it a formidable fast-fashion force in Australia, the UK, and the US — and a commercially significant target for a brand protection lawsuit.
- Adidas argues the four-stripe designs are 'deceptively similar' to its iconic mark and that White Fox's ads — mixing genuine Adidas products with its own striped clothing — risk misleading consumers into thinking the two brands are connected.
- White Fox's legal team is preparing to argue that decorative parallel stripes are widely used across Australian retail, pointing to brands like Cotton On and Glassons as evidence that stripes are a common design element, not an Adidas monopoly.
- Adidas is seeking all profits from the striped products, plus interest and costs — and the case echoes its 2013 win against Pacific Brands over four-striped shoes, suggesting the German giant has both precedent and patience on its side.
In the long contest between identity and imitation, Adidas has brought its trademarked three-stripe mark before Australia's Federal Court, arguing that Sydney fast-fashion retailer White Fox has crossed the line from aesthetic inspiration into deliberate infringement with its four-striped clothing designs. The dispute asks an enduring question of commerce and creativity: at what point does a stripe become a symbol, and when does borrowing become theft? With a trademark registered since 1957 and a rapidly ascending competitor generating over half a billion dollars in annual revenue, the case places the weight of brand heritage against the momentum of modern fast fashion. A trial is expected in early 2026, when a judge will be asked to draw that line.
Adidas has taken Australian fast-fashion retailer White Fox to Federal Court, alleging that the Sydney-based brand has been selling clothing bearing four parallel stripes that infringe on Adidas's trademarked three-stripe design — a mark registered in Australia since 1957 and, the company argues, carrying enormous commercial value.
White Fox, founded in 2013 by Georgia and Daniel Contos and co-owned by Daniel's mother Melina Maceri, has grown into a significant retail force, targeting teenagers and young adults across Australia, the UK, and the US through influencer marketing and high-visibility advertising. Revenue reached AU$542 million in the year ending June 2025 — four times its 2022 figure — making it a visible and fast-moving competitor in the markets where Adidas operates.
Adidas presented the court with side-by-side product comparisons and advertising photographs, including a notable online listing showing White Fox socks modelled alongside pink Adidas shoes. Adidas alleges that after legal proceedings were filed, the Adidas logo on those shoes was digitally altered — first losing one stripe, then all three — suggesting an awareness of the problem the imagery posed.
In court, White Fox denied any trademark breach and signalled it would argue that decorative stripes are commonplace across Australian retail, citing brands such as Cotton On, Sportscraft, and Glassons as examples. Adidas's lawyers pushed back, arguing that White Fox's use of four stripes reflects a deliberate intention to trade on Adidas's reputation, and that mixing genuine Adidas products with its own striped designs risks misleading consumers about any endorsement or association.
Adidas is seeking damages covering all profits from the striped products, plus interest and legal costs. The case recalls the company's successful 2013 action against Pacific Brands over four-striped shoes. A three-to-four-day trial is expected in early 2026, when a judge will decide whether White Fox's design amounts to infringement — or simply fashion.
Adidas has filed suit against White Fox, a Sydney-based fast-fashion retailer, in Australia's Federal Court, claiming the company is selling clothes with a four-striped design that infringes the German sportswear giant's trademarked three-stripe logo. The dispute centers on whether White Fox's parallel stripes are distinct enough from Adidas's iconic mark or whether they cross into trademark violation.
Adidas says it has owned the three-stripe design as a registered trademark in Australia since 1957, and that the mark carries substantial commercial value. The company claims White Fox has been selling and promoting clothes bearing four equal-width parallel stripes since at least March of this year, despite repeated requests to stop. In court filings, Adidas argues the designs are "substantially identical with or otherwise deceptively similar" to its own, and that White Fox is deliberately attempting to capitalize on Adidas's reputation.
White Fox, which was founded in 2013 by Georgia and Daniel Contos and is also owned by Daniel's mother Melina Maceri, has become a significant player in fast fashion. The company targets teenagers and young adults across Australia, the UK, and the US, building its brand through billboards, bus advertising, and influencer partnerships. In the 12 months ending June 2025, White Fox generated AU$542 million in revenue—a fourfold increase from its 2022 figure of AU$121 million. The company's rapid growth has made it a visible presence in multiple markets.
Adidas presented evidence to the court that includes side-by-side product comparisons and photographs of White Fox's advertising materials. The company highlighted an online listing from June 2025 showing White Fox-branded socks modeled by someone wearing pink Adidas shoes. According to Adidas's court documents, after the legal proceedings were filed last month, the Adidas logo on those shoes was digitally altered—first to remove one stripe, then a week later to remove all three stripes entirely.
In Federal Court on Friday, White Fox's lawyers denied any trademark breach. While the company has not yet filed a formal defence, its legal team told Justice Ian Jackman that White Fox intends to argue that other prominent Australian brands—including Cotton On, Sportscraft, and Glassons—also sell clothing with similar decorative stripes. This suggests White Fox will contend that striped designs are a common feature in the market and not uniquely associated with Adidas.
Adidas's lawyers countered that White Fox's use of four stripes demonstrates an "intention to trade off our reputation." The company also argues that White Fox's advertisements create confusion by featuring people wearing genuine Adidas products alongside the four-striped designs, potentially leading Australian consumers to believe Adidas endorses or is associated with White Fox. Adidas characterizes this as White Fox "drawing an association in the minds of consumers" between the two brands, or at minimum "sailing close to the wind."
The company is seeking damages from White Fox, including all profits generated from the sale of the striped products, plus interest and legal costs. Adidas reported €24.8 billion in global revenue in 2025, making this a dispute between a multinational corporation and a rapidly growing but still much smaller competitor.
The case carries echoes of Adidas's 2013 victory against Pacific Brands in Australian court, when the company successfully challenged the sale of shoes bearing four stripes. A trial lasting three to four days is expected to begin early next year, when a judge will ultimately determine whether White Fox's design crosses the line from inspiration to infringement.
Citations marquantes
White Fox has been selling and advertising clothes with four parallel stripes despite repeated requests to stop since March— Adidas, in court filings
White Fox intends to argue that other prominent Australian brands such as Cotton On, Sportscraft and Glassons sell clothes with similar decorative stripes— White Fox's lawyers, in Federal Court
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur BBC News ↗
Business