Four Stripes vs Three: What Adidas v White Fox Means for Australian Brands
Adidas has taken Australian fashion retailer White Fox to the Federal Court over a simple question...
Trade mark news
Four Stripes vs Three: What Adidas v White Fox Means for Australian Brands
By IP Wealth · Published 19 October 2026 · 5 minute read
Adidas has taken Australian fashion retailer White Fox to the Federal Court over a simple question: when does a fourth stripe stop being decoration and start looking like someone else's brand? Nothing has been decided, but the case is already worth a close read if your business uses stripes, patterns or a distinctive design.
What has happened so far
On 18 September 2026, Adidas Australia filed Federal Court proceedings against White Fox Boutique. The case concerns White Fox's four-stripe sweatpants, lounge shorts and socks. Adidas alleges that these products are substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, its three-stripe trade marks, and that the way the products were sold and promoted could lead shoppers to think Adidas made, permitted or approved them.
Adidas is asking the court for an injunction to stop the sales, an account of White Fox's profits, a declaration, damages, interest and costs. White Fox has not yet filed a defence. At the first hearing in Sydney, its lawyers said the stripes are decorative rather than a brand, that other retailers sell four-stripe items, and that an earlier 2013 footwear decision should not be stretched to cover clothing. Justice Jackman has set the trial for early 2027, expected to run three to four days.
Important to remember
These are allegations and arguments, not findings. The court has not decided whether any trade mark has been infringed.
The legal questions at the heart of it
Substantially identical or deceptively similar
Under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), a registered trade mark owner can take action against someone who uses a sign that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the registered mark for the same or closely related goods. A mark is deceptively similar if it so nearly resembles another that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion. The comparison is made from the point of view of an ordinary shopper with an imperfect memory, not by laying the two designs side by side.
Decoration or a badge of origin?
A central issue in many infringement cases is whether the sign is being used as a trade mark, that is, as a badge of origin telling shoppers who made the goods. White Fox says its stripes are decorative. Adidas says shoppers see stripes on sportswear and think of Adidas. How a court weighs those two views will be closely watched by fashion and apparel businesses.
How a product is sold matters too
Adidas also points to how the products were advertised and presented. That is a reminder that trade mark law and consumer law often run side by side. Even where a design is arguably different, the surrounding advertising, styling and context can influence whether shoppers are likely to be misled.
What Australian brand owners can take from this
- Check what you have actually registered. A name may be protected while a pattern, stripe, shape or colour combination is not. Pattern and get-up marks can be registered, but the application needs to be clear about what the mark is and which goods it covers.
- Cover the right goods. Protection is tied to the goods and services listed. If your brand has grown from footwear into clothing and accessories, your registrations should grow with it.
- Be careful with design features that echo famous brands. Stripes, checks, shapes and colour blocking can feel like neutral decoration, but if they resemble a well-known brand's identity they may draw a complaint.
- Think about your advertising. How you style, label and promote products can matter as much as the product itself.
- Keep records. Dated evidence of when and how you started using a design can be valuable if you are ever challenged, or need to challenge someone else.
Quick self-check
Do you use stripes, patterns or a distinctive shape across your products? If so, ask whether it is registered, whether it covers the goods you now sell, and whether it could be mistaken for a larger brand's design. If you are unsure, it is worth getting advice before you scale up.
What happens next
White Fox's defence is still to come, and the trial is not expected until early 2027. The outcome may clarify how Australian courts treat repeated stripe designs on clothing. Until then, the safest approach for any business is to clear a design before it launches and to protect the features that make its own brand recognisable.
Frequently asked questions
Can I trade mark stripes or a pattern in Australia?
Yes, in principle. Patterns, shapes and other non-traditional signs can be registered if they are capable of distinguishing your goods from others. The mark needs to be clearly described and linked to the right goods, and it may face objections if it looks purely decorative or is common in the market.
What does deceptively similar mean?
A mark is deceptively similar to another if it so nearly resembles it that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion. The test looks at overall impression and how an ordinary shopper would remember the original, rather than a detailed side-by-side comparison.
Is decoration a defence to trade mark infringement?
It can be argued. Infringement generally turns on whether a sign is used as a trade mark, meaning as a badge of origin. White Fox's lawyers say its stripes are decorative. Whether that argument succeeds depends on the evidence and the court's view of how shoppers see the stripes.
Has the court decided Adidas v White Fox?
No. The case was filed on 18 September 2026, White Fox has not yet filed a defence, and a trial is expected in early 2027. Everything above reflects allegations and arguments reported so far.
Not sure if your brand is protected?
Our trade mark team can check what you have registered, whether it covers what you sell, and whether your designs could draw a complaint.
Talk to IP WealthThis article is general information only and is not legal advice. It reports allegations made in court proceedings that have not been decided. Speak to a registered trade marks attorney about your specific situation. Sources: TheIndustry.fashion (9 October 2026) and Trademark Lawyer Magazine (21 September 2026).
