Adidas leans on a 2013 shoe ruling in its four-stripe case against White Fox
Adidas is suing Sydney label White Fox in Australia's Federal Court, saying its four-stripe clothing is deceptively similar to the Adidas three-stripe mark. Its barrister calls it a simple case because of a 2013 win over four-stripe shoes, a ruling White Fox distinguishes as being about footwear.
The Board Room · Leadership desk
Adidas seeks orders barring White Fox from making four-stripe clothing and handing over profits on them. Adidas won a 2013 case over four-stripe shoes. White Fox says that ruling found side branding common on shoes, not clothing, and will argue its stripes are decorative.
- Who's exposed exposure White Fox Adidas seeks orders barring it from making four-stripe clothing and forcing it to hand over profits on the products, claim 8
- What it sets up precedent Adidas Won a 2013 case over another retailer's four-stripe shoes; Flynn said the White Fox action was "not uncharted territory", claim 5
- What doesn't add up contradiction White Fox's defence Says the 2013 ruling found side branding common on shoes, with no such common practice for clothing, claim 23
- What doesn't add up contradiction White Fox's defence Will argue the four stripes on its clothing are decorative rather than a trademark, claim 16
| Who | How | Kind | Claim |
|---|---|---|---|
| White Fox | Adidas seeks orders barring it from making four-stripe clothing and forcing it to hand over profits on the products | exposure | 8 |
| Adidas | Won a 2013 case over another retailer's four-stripe shoes; Flynn said the White Fox action was "not uncharted territory" | precedent | 5 |
| White Fox's defence | Says the 2013 ruling found side branding common on shoes, with no such common practice for clothing | contradiction | 23 |
| White Fox's defence | Will argue the four stripes on its clothing are decorative rather than a trademark | contradiction | 16 |
What happened
- Adidas says it asked White Fox repeatedly from March to stop selling and promoting the four-stripe clothes, and that the Sydney company refused.
- Adidas's barrister pointed to a White Fox-endorsed influencer pictured in the label's four-stripe shorts and genuine Adidas shoes as a promotion that would confuse consumers.
- Adidas alleges that after it lodged proceedings, the stripes on Adidas shoes in a June 2025 White Fox sock listing were digitally removed, first one stripe and a week later all three.
- White Fox will argue the stripes are decorative and not used as a trademark, pointing to similar four-stripe items sold by Princess Polly, Glassons and Shein.
- Adidas is seeking orders barring White Fox from making four-stripe clothing and forcing it to hand over the profits it made on the products.
Why it matters
- What it limits constraint For Adidas's case to be as simple as its barrister says, the court has to accept that stripes on clothing signal a brand the way the 2013 ruling found side stripes on shoes do.
- Who's exposed exposure Any brand that styles its own product beside a rival's genuine one is building a record the rival can file as evidence of intended association.
- What it sets up precedent A ruling for Adidas on clothing would leave the other fast-fashion labels White Fox cited in its defence more exposed over their own four-stripe items.
Next story · Leadership · Oct 9
Shein's £2.58bn UK year tests Britain's 2028 date for ending duty-free parcelsConfirmed2 publishers
The 2013 judgment Adidas relies on concerned footwear. Adidas won that case against Pacific Brands over shoes bearing four stripes [7], and its barrister, Patrick Flynn SC, told the court the action against White Fox was "not uncharted territory" [5]. "This is a pretty simple matter," he said [6]. White Fox's barrister, Ed Heerey KC, noted that the same judgment found branding on the side of shoes was common, and that there was no such common practice for clothing [23].
Heerey also put the sceptic's case in two sentences. "Obviously Adidas has a reputation," he said. "Their own slogan is that it's the brand with three stripes. Emphasis on the three." [17] Adidas's answer turns on how the clothes were sold more than on how many stripes they carry. Its court documents say advertisements featuring "genuine" Adidas items might lead Australians to think Adidas was associated with White Fox and had approved the design [13]. "There's an intention to trade off our reputation," Flynn said [4]. If proved, the alleged edits to the sock listing go to that question of intent [24].
White Fox grew on the marketing that Adidas has now put in evidence. The Contos founders built the brand on social media and influencer marketing [11], and the BBC reports the company also relied on billboards and bus advertising [12]. Adidas's exhibits include images of billboards on buses and at bus stops [14]. Revenue reached AU$542m in the year to June 2025, about 4.5 times the 2022 figure, according to the Australian Financial Review as cited by the BBC [20][29]. The company expanded into the UK in 2024 and has a growing presence in the US [15]. The Guardian reported that this is its first high-profile litigation of this kind [26].
Adidas has defended the three stripes around the world with varying success, according to the Guardian [27]. It recently lost infringement cases against Thom Browne in the US, the UK and Germany [25]. In Australia the mark has been registered since 1957, and Adidas's filings claim a "substantial and valuable reputation" there [10]. The two companies are far apart in size. On the Guardian's Australian-dollar figures, Adidas's record 2025 revenue of $39.9bn is about 74 times White Fox's [19][28].
The hearing is set for early 2027 [18]. Until then the live decision is White Fox's. On Adidas's account, the company has kept the range on sale since at least March [2]. Adidas's claim adds interest and costs to the profits it wants handed over [9]. On that claim, each month the clothing stays on sale enlarges the sum at stake if Adidas wins. Withdrawing the range would cap that sum at the cost of its sales, and the reported filings do not say how large those sales are. The law firms for both sides declined to comment to the BBC [21].
What to watch
- The early-2027 hearing before Justice Ian Jackman, and whether the court treats stripes on clothing the way the 2013 judgment treated stripes on shoes.
- Whatever evidence White Fox brings on whether any consumer was actually misled, which it has said it will test.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence70
- Adoption
- Not scored
- Hype gap+5
- Incentives60
- Confidence65
Perspective Coverage
3 publishers- Builder
- Builder 10%
- Operator
- Operator 55%
- Investor
- Investor 35%
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
Adidas is suing online fast-fashion retailer White Fox in the Federal Court for selling clothes with a four-stripe design it argues is deceptively similar to its three-stripe trademark.
- [2]
Adidas says it repeatedly asked White Fox from March to stop selling and promoting the four-stripe clothes and White Fox refused; Adidas says White Fox has sold and advertised them since at least March.
- [3]
Adidas's barrister Patrick Flynn SC pointed to a picture of a White Fox-endorsed influencer wearing the company's four-stripe shorts with genuine Adidas shoes as a promotion that would confuse consumers.
- [4]
"There's an intention to trade off our reputation," Flynn said.
- [5]
Adidas successfully sued another retailer over four-stripe shoes in 2013, and Flynn said the action filed against White Fox in September was "not uncharted territory".
- [6]
"This is a pretty simple matter," Flynn said.
- [7]
In 2013, Adidas successfully sued Pacific Brands in Australia for selling shoes with four stripes.
- [8]
Adidas is seeking orders preventing White Fox from making clothing with four stripes and forcing it to hand over profits made on the products.
- [9]
Adidas is seeking damages, saying White Fox must pay it the profit from the products plus interest and costs.
- [10]
Adidas's three-stripe design has been trademarked in Australia since 1957, and its Federal Court documents say it has a "substantial and valuable reputation" there.
- [11]
Co-founders Georgia and Daniel Contos focused on social media and influencer marketing to build the White Fox brand.
- [12]
White Fox has relied on billboards, bus advertising and influencers, often university-aged, to grow its profile.
- [13]
Adidas's court documents argue White Fox's advertisements feature people wearing "genuine" Adidas items, which might lead Australians to think Adidas is associated with White Fox and has approved the design.
- [14]
Adidas's evidence included side-by-side comparisons of its products with White Fox clothes and images of billboards on buses and at bus stops.
- [15]
White Fox has a growing presence in the US and expanded into the UK market in 2024.
- [16]
White Fox's barrister Ed Heerey KC said White Fox would argue the four stripes on its clothing were decorative rather than a trademark, and highlighted similar four-stripe items from Princess Polly, Glassons and Shein.
- [17]
"Obviously Adidas has a reputation," Heerey said. "Their own slogan is that it's the brand with three stripes. Emphasis on the three."
- [18]
Justice Ian Jackman set the dispute down for a hearing in early 2027.
- [19]
White Fox generated $542m in revenue in the year to June 2025; Adidas generated a record $39.9bn in 2025 (Guardian Australian-dollar figures).
- [20]
White Fox generated AU$542m in revenue in the 12 months to June 2025, a four-fold jump from its 2022 figure of $121m, according to the Australian Financial Review.
- [21]
The Australian law firms representing Adidas and White Fox both declined to comment on the case.
- [22]
White Fox will interrogate whether its use of four stripes was deceptively similar to Adidas's trademark and whether any consumers would actually be misled.
- [23]
Heerey noted the 2013 judgment in favour of Adidas found it was common for branding to be placed on the side of shoes, but there was no such common practice for clothing.
- [24]
Adidas's documents allege that a few days after proceedings were lodged, the Adidas logo on pink Adidas shoes worn in a June 2025 White Fox sock listing was digitally altered to remove one stripe, and a week later all three stripes were scrubbed from the image.
- [25]
Adidas recently lost trademark infringement cases against luxury brand Thom Browne in the US, UK and Germany.
- [26]
The case is the first high-profile litigation of this kind against White Fox Boutique.
- [27]
Adidas has vigilantly defended its three-stripe trademark across the globe with varying success.
- [28]
Adidas's 2025 revenue is about 74 times White Fox's revenue for the year to June 2025, on the Guardian's Australian-dollar figures.
- [29]
White Fox's revenue in the year to June 2025 was about 4.5 times its 2022 figure.
Sources
3 independent publishers whose own reporting we read for this story.
- bbc.co.ukAdidas sues Australian label White Fox over four stripes design
1 article · October 8, 2026
- mezha.netAdidas позивається до White Fox Boutique через дизайн із 4 смугами
1 article · October 10, 2026
- theguardian.comAdidas accuses Australian label White Fox of ‘trading off its reputation’ with use of four-stripe branding
1 article · October 8, 2026
Topics and entities
Topics
- Trademark infringement
- Fast fashion
Entities
- Federal Court of Australia
- White Fox Boutique
- Shein
- Patrick Flynn SC