In the trademark dispute between Adidas and Thom Browne, a Manhattan jury sided with the luxury designer in January 2023, finding that Thom Browne’s four-bar stripe design did not infringe or dilute the Adidas Three-Stripe Mark.1Justia. Adidas v. Thom Browne – Final Judgment Adidas asked for a new trial, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied that request, issuing a detailed opinion in July 2024 that left the verdict in place.2Justia. Adidas v. Thom Browne – Opinion and Order
What the Lawsuit Was About
Adidas America and Adidas AG filed suit in June 2021, arguing that Thom Browne’s parallel-stripe motifs were too close to the Three-Stripe Mark the sportswear company has used on footwear and apparel since the late 1940s.3Justia. Adidas America, Inc. v. Thom Browne, Inc.
The backstory matters. Thom Browne originally used a three-stripe motif on its luxury knitwear in the early 2000s. After Adidas raised concerns in 2007, the designer added a fourth stripe, producing the Four-Bar design that appears on sleeves and pant legs. Adidas argued the extra stripe did not fix the problem, especially once Thom Browne began putting the bars on activewear-style garments where the visual overlap with athletic branding was closer. Thom Browne countered that the bars functioned as a tailoring flourish in high fashion, not as a source identifier for sportswear.
Why the Jury Found No Infringement
Under the Lanham Act, infringement turns on whether a defendant’s use of a mark is likely to confuse consumers about the source of the goods.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Courts in the Second Circuit weigh factors including the similarity of the marks, the proximity of the products, the sophistication of the buyer, evidence of actual confusion, and the defendant’s intent.5Justia. Virgin Enterprises Ltd. v. Nawab
Thom Browne’s defense leaned on the market gap between the two brands. A pair of Thom Browne leggings sold for over $700, while comparable Adidas leggings retailed for under $100. The designer’s goods reached buyers through runway shows and boutique placements, not the mass-market channels Adidas uses. The jury accepted that the two companies were selling to different shoppers with different expectations, and that in that context the four bars read as decoration rather than as an athletic trademark. The verdict cleared Thom Browne on both infringement and dilution.
The Post-Trial Fight and What Stands Now
Adidas moved for a new trial, arguing that the standards governing consumer perception had been misapplied. The district court denied the motion in May 2024 and followed with a written opinion in July 2024 explaining the reasoning and confirming that the jury’s verdict would stand.2Justia. Adidas v. Thom Browne – Opinion and Order
The practical outcome for the two companies: Thom Browne owes no damages, keeps the Four-Bar design, and does not have to change its product line. Adidas retains its Three-Stripe Mark and its ability to enforce it against other users, but not against this one.