Adidas sues White Fox over ‘four‑stripe’ clothing design
In a move that ripples across the fashion industry, global sports‑wear titan Adidas is suing Australian fast‑fashion retailer White Fox for using a four‑stripe pattern that the brand claims is "deceptively similar" to its own trademarked three‑stripe logo.
Adidas first notified White Fox in March that its products, ranging from pants to socks, were infringing on the German company’s trademark rights. The court case, set to begin in the Federal Court of Australia, will examine whether White Fox’s designs could confuse consumers into thinking the two brands are connected.
White Fox, founded in 2013 by Greek‑Australian couple Georgia and Daniel Contos, has quickly become popular among teenagers and young adults in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States through heavy use of influencer marketing and public‑transport advertising. The Australian brand has seen a quadruple jump in revenue to AU$542 million by the end of June 2025.
Adidas, which earned €24.8 billion in 2025, points to its 1957 trademark registration in Australia, arguing that the four‑stripe pattern on White Fox apparel is so close in appearance it leads consumers to believe the products are associated with Adidas’s reputable brand. The company also alleges that White Fox has advertised its products behind Adidas wear, further muddying the waters for consumers.
In a side‑by‑side comparison presented to the court, Adidas shows images of White Fox sweatpants and short shorts side by side with its own gear, and notes that the lower side of White Fox’s four stripes is not only thicker but also positioned in a way that mirrors the classic Adidas stripes.
Adidas is asking for damages that cover the profits White Fox has earned from the allegedly infringing items, as well as interest and legal costs. The dispute follows a previous Adidas win in 2013 when it sued Australian competitor Pacific Brands for a similar four‑stripe shoe design.
If the court rules in favour of Adidas, it could set a significant precedent for trademark protection in the fashion industry, especially as brands increasingly compete on unique visual identities.
