How Adidas Made Three Stripes Its Own

 A recent dispute reported by BBC News highlights once again how seriously Adidas takes the protection of its brand. The sportswear giant is suing Australian fashion label White Fox over clothing featuring four parallel stripes, arguing that the designs are deceptively similar to its famous three-stripe branding.

As discussed in my previous blog, Adidas is an example of a successful business that has strenuously protected its turf. 

Over the years, it has reportedly pursued actions against businesses using two, four, and even more stripes. The company has challenged numerous stripe-based designs in an effort to preserve the association between parallel stripes and Adidas.

What makes this particularly interesting is that three stripes are not inherently distinctive. Indeed, the EU courts have described stripes as a relatively "banal" design feature. Yet through decades of marketing, extensive trade mark registrations, and vigorous enforcement, Adidas has succeeded in building a powerful association between a simple visual element and a single source.

The latest dispute with White Fox is therefore entirely consistent with Adidas' long-standing strategy. The company understands that if consumers are to continue associating stripes with Adidas, it cannot simply rely on trade mark registrations. It must actively defend the associations it has spent decades creating. 

The Adidas story illustrates an important point about intellectual property. Businesses often assume that success comes from adopting something unique. In reality, even an ordinary design element can become a valuable brand asset if it is used consistently and protected effectively.

To build recognition around a relatively weak element such as stripes requires substantial resources and a willingness to challenge similar uses by others. Adidas has done exactly that for many years and, as a result, many consumers now immediately think of Adidas when they see parallel stripes on sportswear.

Whether Adidas succeeds in its claim against White Fox remains to be seen. However, the case serves as a reminder that strong brands are not built by registration alone. They are built through consistent use and maintained through consistent enforcement. 

The real lesson is that branding is not just about creating recognition. It is also about protecting and enforcing it.  

If you've registered your brand don’t assume that’s the end of it. You will need to protect that brand. Be sure to contact Azrights if you don’t have a brand protection service in place.