Adidas Takes White Fox to Court Over Four-Stripe Designs in Australian Trademark Clash

Adidas has launched legal action against Australian fast-fashion label White Fox, accusing the Sydney-based retailer of selling and promoting clothing featuring a four-stripe motif that the German sportswear giant claims comes dangerously close to its own iconic three-stripe trademark.

The case, lodged in Australia's Federal Court, is scheduled to have its first hearing on Friday. Lawyers representing both sides declined to comment when approached, leaving the court documents to outline the parameters of the dispute.

According to filings submitted by Adidas, the company believes its three-stripe design enjoys a "substantial and valuable reputation" in Australia, where it has held trademark protection since 1957. That long-standing registration forms the backbone of the brand's argument that White Fox has crossed a legal line.

Adidas contends that since at least March, White Fox has been marketing and selling garments decorated with four parallel stripes of equal width. In the company's view, this amounts to an infringement of its registered trademark rather than a coincidental design choice.

The court documents further allege that White Fox's striped apparel is "substantially identical with or otherwise deceptively similar" to Adidas products. The phrasing suggests Adidas will argue that ordinary shoppers could confuse the two brands' offerings on the shelf or online.

Beyond the garments themselves, Adidas has raised concerns about how White Fox has presented its products. The filings claim that advertisements for White Fox's four-striped clothing and its branded socks feature models wearing what Adidas describes as "genuine" Adidas items.

That overlap, Adidas argues, risks creating the impression among Australian consumers that the two brands are connected and that Adidas has endorsed the four-stripe design. Such an association, if accepted by the court, could strengthen the infringement claim considerably.

Adidas also accuses White Fox of "taking advantage" of its reputation by "drawing an association in the minds of consumers" between the two labels. In the alternative, the company suggests White Fox has at minimum been "sailing close to the wind" with its design decisions.

The sportswear giant is not only seeking an injunction-style outcome but also monetary compensation. It is asking the court to order White Fox to hand over the profits earned from the disputed products, along with interest and legal costs.

Adidas's financial scale underscores the imbalance between the two parties. The company reported revenue of €24.8 billion — equivalent to roughly £21 billion or $28 billion — in 2025, giving it substantial resources to pursue trademark enforcement across multiple jurisdictions.

White Fox, by contrast, is a privately owned business launched in 2013 by Georgia and Daniel Contos. The Greek-Australian couple, together with Daniel's mother Melina Maceri, retains full ownership of the company, which has grown rapidly through online sales.

That growth has been remarkable. In the 12 months to June 2025, White Fox generated AU$542 million — about £286 million or $377 million — in revenue, according to the Australian Financial Review. That figure represents a four-fold increase from the $121 million recorded in 2022.

The brand's rise has been powered largely by its appeal to teenagers and young adults in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. White Fox has leaned heavily on billboard and bus advertising, as well as partnerships with influencers, many of them university-aged, to build awareness.

Its expansion into the UK market in 2024 marked another step in its international ambitions, and the company's growing presence in the US has made it a more visible player in the competitive fast-fashion sector. That visibility may now be working against it in court.

Adidas has submitted side-by-side comparisons of its own products and White Fox garments, including sweatpants and lounge shorts, as part of its evidence. It also provided images of billboards displayed on buses and at bus stops to illustrate the promotional overlap.

One example cited in the documents concerns an online listing from June 2025 that showed a pair of White Fox-branded socks being modelled by someone wearing pink Adidas shoes. Just days after the court proceedings were filed last month, the Adidas logo on those shoes was digitally altered to remove one stripe, the filings allege. A week later, all three stripes had reportedly been scrubbed from the image.

The dispute is not Adidas's first attempt to defend its stripes in Australian courts. In 2013, the company successfully sued Pacific Brands over the sale of shoes bearing four stripes, a precedent that could carry weight in the current matter.

However, Adidas has not always prevailed in stripe-related litigation. In January 2023, it lost a trademark battle against designer Thom Browne, a case that highlighted the limits of its enforcement strategy in some markets and circumstances.

The outcome of the White Fox case may hinge on how the Federal Court assesses consumer perception and the degree of similarity between the two designs. Trademark law in Australia generally protects marks that are distinctive and whose use by others would likely confuse the public.

For White Fox, the stakes extend beyond potential damages. A ruling against the label could force it to redesign core products and disrupt its marketing approach, at a time when it is investing in overseas growth. For Adidas, the case is another front in a long-running effort to police one of the most recognisable visual identities in sportswear.

Neither company has commented publicly on the specifics of the dispute, and the first hearing on Friday is expected to set out procedural steps rather than resolve the substantive claims. Further hearings and a possible trial would follow if the matter is not settled beforehand.