Adidas Lawsuit Tracker: Trademark, Discrimination, Yeezy

Adidas lawsuits in 2025 and 2026 span four active fronts: trademark fights over the three-stripe mark, employment discrimination suits from former staff at the company’s Portland headquarters, a California digital privacy class action, and the tail end of litigation tied to the Yeezy breakup. Some are going the company’s way. Several are not.

Three-Stripe Trademark Cases

The three-stripe mark is the company’s most heavily litigated asset, and recent rulings show courts pushing back on how broadly Adidas can enforce it.

Thom Browne Appeal Closed (April 2026)

Adidas sued designer Thom Browne in the Southern District of New York in June 2021, alleging that Thom Browne’s four-bar design on activewear infringed and diluted the three-stripe trademark.¹ A jury cleared Thom Browne on all counts in 2023, citing the price gap between the two brands (Thom Browne garments can run upward of $3,000) and the rigid visual presentation Adidas’s trademark requires.²

Adidas tried to reopen the case using internal Thom Browne emails uncovered in separate UK litigation, arguing they were newly discovered evidence withheld during discovery. On April 29, 2026, the Second Circuit affirmed the denial. The emails, the court ruled, reflected internal brand opinions rather than consumer confusion, and the failure to produce them was negligent rather than intentional, falling short of the “misconduct” standard needed to vacate a final judgment.²³ The verdict stands.

Steve Madden’s Preemptive Suit (May 2025)

On May 21, 2025, Steve Madden sued Adidas first, filing in the Eastern District of New York for a declaratory judgment that its Viento and Janos sneaker designs do not infringe the three-stripe mark.⁴ The Viento features two nonparallel bands; the Janos uses a stylized “K” shape. Steve Madden argued neither shoe contains three parallel stripes and accused Adidas of trying to “monopolize all footwear that includes stripes, bars, bands or any shape having four sides.”⁵

The complaint noted that Adidas had already sent cease-and-desist demands on the Viento and had opposed Steve Madden’s “K-Design” trademark application at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, calling it a “two-stripe design” even though, according to Steve Madden, the shoe has no stripes at all.⁶

Hall of Fame Sports Memorabilia (Ongoing)

Adidas sued the New Jersey retailer in 2024 in the District of Oregon over knockoff Real Madrid and Argentina soccer jerseys, alleging trademark infringement, counterfeiting, trade dress infringement, and dilution.⁷ The defense argued that stripes on the jerseys did not run down the sleeves the way Adidas’s registered mark depicts, and that the products had already been withdrawn and destroyed.

On May 18, 2026, Judge Karin J. Immergut dismissed certain infringement and counterfeiting claims, ruling that Adidas relied on its broad “Three-Stripe Mark” as a catchall without tying the accused jerseys to specific trademark registrations as the Lanham Act requires.⁸ Adidas was given 30 days to replead and filed an amended complaint on June 18, 2026. No ruling on that amended pleading has been recorded.⁹

Nike Stripe Ruling in Germany (May 2024)

Adidas sued Nike in Germany in 2022 over two- and three-stripe patterns on the outer seams of sports trousers. A lower court initially barred five specific pairs. On appeal, the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court reversed most of that in May 2024, allowing Nike to continue selling all but one of the disputed designs. It found no likelihood of confusion between the three-stripe mark and Nike’s two-stripe patterns, and it distinguished decorative use from trademark use even on a three-stripe Nike design. The court stated that while the public associates Adidas with its three-stripe design, “this does not mean that every stripe pattern on the side… is attributed to adidas.”¹⁰

EU Registration Invalidated (June 2019)

The pattern of narrower rulings traces back to a foundational loss. On June 19, 2019, the General Court of the European Union invalidated one of Adidas’s broad EU trademark registrations for three parallel stripes, holding the mark “extremely simple” and lacking inherent distinctive character.¹¹ Much of Adidas’s evidence was rejected because it depicted variations — different colors, slanted angles, different stripe counts — that differed from the specific registered mark.¹² The ruling applied only to that registration; other Adidas stripe marks remain in force.

Sole Retriever Trade-Secrets Case (Dismissed)

On March 12, 2026, Adidas America filed suit in the District of Oregon against Sole Retriever LLC and its 28-year-old founder, Harris R. Monoson, alleging trade-secret theft, copyright infringement, and extortion under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016.¹³ The complaint accused the sneaker news platform of conspiring with up to five unidentified individuals, potentially including unauthorized Adidas employees, to obtain confidential CAD files, sneaker photographs, collaboration details, release dates, and pricing.¹⁴ Adidas said Sole Retriever then published images of unreleased Anthony Edwards 2, Anthony Edwards 3, and D.O.N. Issue 8 basketball shoes.¹⁵

The extortion claim rested on an August 2025 email in which Monoson allegedly told Adidas employees it was his “last attempt” to have the company “make good” on their relationship, threatening to publish full details of the Anthony Edwards lineup if Adidas did not treat the site with more “respect.”¹⁴ Adidas sought up to $150,000 per willful infringement and a permanent injunction.¹⁵ Sole Retriever denied the claims, called itself a “proudly independent media company,” and framed the suit as an attack on protected speech.¹⁶

The court dismissed the case with prejudice on June 17, 2026, meaning the claims cannot be refiled. The docket does not disclose whether the parties reached a private settlement.¹³

Employment Discrimination Suits

Portland is where the discrimination cases keep landing. Two are currently on the docket.

Lindsay Gregg — Gender Discrimination and Retaliation (April 2026)

Lindsay Gregg, who led women’s basketball sports marketing at Adidas from 2022 until she was fired in February 2026, sued the company in Multnomah County Circuit Court on April 15, 2026, alleging gender discrimination and whistleblower retaliation.¹⁷ She alleged she managed roughly twice as many athletes as her male peers with fewer resources, that a female direct report was reassigned to a male colleague, and that her supervisor, Cameron Mason, failed to support the women’s basketball program.¹⁸

Two reports preceded her firing. In January 2026, Gregg raised gender-disparity concerns with human resources. During NBA All-Star Weekend in February 2026, she reported a safety concern about a trailer provided for WNBA players Sophie Cunningham and Erica Wheeler that had been accessed by unauthorized individuals.¹⁹ Two weeks later, Mason fired her, calling it a “business decision.”¹⁷ Gregg is seeking reinstatement or future lost wages, emotional distress damages, and attorney’s fees. Adidas has declined to comment on the pending case.

April Burton — Racial Discrimination (September 2025)

Former Senior Manager of Statement Operations April Burton sued in Multnomah County state court in September 2025, seeking $6.2 million in damages. Burton alleged that a senior colleague nicknamed her “ape” and that human resources dismissed the term as an “affectionate shortening.” She also alleged that former Chief Sales Officer Roland Auschel made sexist comments about Beyoncé during a 2023 collaboration event.²⁰ Burton said she raised these issues in a March 2023 meeting attended by senior leadership, including CEO Bjørn Gulden, and was subsequently demoted and fired.²¹ Adidas said it conducted a “comprehensive investigation,” found the claims “unfounded,” and called the suit “baseless.”

Yeezy Litigation Fallout

The 2022 termination of the Kanye West (Ye) partnership after his antisemitic remarks produced a securities class action and a direct dispute with Ye. Both are now closed.

HRSA-ILA Funds v. Adidas AG, filed in federal court in Oregon in April 2023, accused former CEO Kasper Rorsted and CFO Harm Ohlmeyer of concealing the risks of the Yeezy partnership and inflating the company’s stock price in violation of the Securities Exchange Act.²² A lower court dismissed the case, and on December 3, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The appeals court found that Adidas’s risk disclosures about business partners were not materially misleading because a reasonable investor would have understood the inherent risk of partnering with a celebrity like Ye given his well-known history of provocative behavior. Statements about compliance with European reporting standards were too broad and discretionary to be actionable, and the plaintiffs failed to plead that any executive acted with the “deliberate recklessness” needed to prove securities fraud.²³

Adidas and Ye separately reached an out-of-court settlement resolving all remaining claims. The agreement reportedly involved no payments by either side.²⁴ Adidas chose to sell rather than destroy the remaining Yeezy inventory, avoiding an estimated €500 million writeoff, and generated over €508 million on four million pairs in an initial 2023 online sale. The company pledged to donate a significant share of the profits to organizations combating racism and antisemitism, including the Anti-Defamation League and the Philonise and Keeta Floyd Institute for Social Change.²⁵

Digital Privacy Class Action

Camplisson v. Adidas America, Inc., filed in the Southern District of California, alleges that Adidas embedded TikTok Pixel and Microsoft Bing tracking pixels on its website without user consent, collecting IP addresses, browser data, and unique device identifiers. The suit claims this use of “pen registers” or “trap and trace devices” violates California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, which carries statutory damages of $5,000 per violation.²⁶

Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel denied Adidas’s motion to dismiss on November 18, 2025. The court rejected arguments that the pixels do not qualify as pen registers, that Adidas is itself the “user” of the technology and therefore exempt, and that site visitors consented to data collection by browsing. On consent, the court found Adidas’s terms and conditions were not “sufficiently conspicuous” because they sat in the website footer with no pop-up or other mechanism for affirmative assent.²⁷ No class has been certified. The case is in the pleading stage.

Nike Patent Truce

Nike sued Adidas in the District of Oregon in December 2021, claiming its Flyknit knitting patents were infringed by Adidas’s Primeknit shoes. Adidas countered in June 2022 with claims involving nine patents covering mobile applications and shoe-fitting technology.²⁸ By August 2022, both companies jointly asked the courts to dismiss all claims, ending the dispute.²⁹

1
FindLaw. Adidas America, Inc. v. Thom Browne, Inc.
2
The Fashion Law. Appeals Court Shuts Down Adidas Bid to Reopen Thom Browne Stripe Case
3
New York Law Journal. The Meaning of Misconduct Under Rule 60: Adidas America, Inc. v. Thom Browne
4
The Fashion Law. Steve Madden Pushes Back Against Adidas in New Trademark Case
5
Fashion Dive. Adidas Steve Madden Lawsuit Over Stripes
6
Business CCH. Steven Madden, Ltd. v. Adidas AG et al., Complaint
7
Courthouse News. Adidas Hits Resistance in Court Over Three-Stripe Trademark Fight
8
The Fashion Law. Adidas Three-Stripe Trademark Claims Hit Roadblock Ahead of the 2026 World Cup
9
Docket Alarm. Adidas America, Inc. et al. v. Hall of Fame Sports Memorabilia, Inc.
10
Schlich. German Court Confirms That Two Means Two and Three Means Three
11
EU Law Analysis. EU General Court Rules Adidas Three-Stripe Trademark Invalid
12
World Trademark Review. Three Stripes You’re Out: Adidas Loses Appeal as EU General Court Rules Figurative Trademark Invalid
13
PACER Monitor. Adidas America, Inc. v. Sole Retriever LLC et al
14
KOIN. Adidas Sues Sneaker Website, Alleges Extortion and Theft of Trade Secrets
15
Complex. Adidas Sole Retriever Lawsuit
16
SGB Online. Adidas Sues Sole Retriever Over Leaked Basketball Shoe Designs
17
The New York Times / The Athletic. Lawsuit: Adidas Gender Discrimination Whistleblower
18
Sportico. Adidas Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
19
The Oregonian. Former Adidas Exec Sues Over Gender Discrimination, Retaliation
20
WWD. Adidas Sued Over Racial Discrimination
21
SL Guardian. Adidas Sued by Former Employee Over Allegations of Racism and Sexism
22
The Fashion Law. Adidas Execs Named in Stock Drop Lawsuit Over Yeezy Partnership
23
Digital Music News. HRSA-ILA Funds v. Adidas AG, No. 24-6655
24
The Wall Street Journal. Adidas Sprints in Recovery Race as Profit Surges
25
Financial Times. Adidas Yeezy Inventory Sales
26
Baker Donelson. Green Light for CIPA: New Federal Court Ruling Fuels Digital Tracking Class Actions
27
Justia. Camplisson et al. v. Adidas America, Inc., Order on Motion to Dismiss
28
UCI Center for IP, Competition, and Law Journal. Sole Rivals: A Dive Into Nike and Adidas Legal Tussle in IP
29
VMSD. Nike and Adidas Reach Cease-Fire on Patent Lawsuits