Adidas Sues Australian Label White Fox in Federal Court Over Four-Stripe Design Alleged to Infringe Three-Stripe Trademark
Adidas has filed proceedings in Australia's Federal Court against fast-fashion online retailer White Fox Boutique, alleging that White Fox's four-stripe design on clothing is substantially identical to or deceptively similar to Adidas's registered three-stripe trademark. Court proceedings were lodged last month, with the first hearing due to begin on 9 October 2026. Adidas, which reported €24.8 billion in revenue in 2025, states in its Federal Court documents that its three-stripe design has been trademarked in Australia since 1957 and carries a substantial and valuable reputation. The company alleges that since at least March 2026, White Fox has been selling and advertising clothes bearing four parallel stripes of equal width, and that White Fox advertisements feature people wearing genuine Adidas items alongside White Fox four-stripe products, potentially leading consumers to believe the two brands are associated. Adidas is seeking damages equal to White Fox's profits from the infringing products, plus interest and costs. In an additional detail in the court documents, Adidas alleged that a few days after the proceedings were lodged last month, the Adidas logo on a pair of shoes appearing in a White Fox online listing was digitally altered to remove one stripe, and a week later all three stripes were removed entirely. White Fox was founded in 2013 by Georgia and Daniel Contos, is privately owned, and generated AU$542 million in revenue in the twelve months to June 2025, a four-fold jump from its 2022 figure. The brand has expanded into the UK market since 2024 and has a growing US presence. Adidas successfully sued Pacific Brands in Australia for a comparable four-stripe infringement in 2013. Both firms' Australian legal representatives declined to comment.
Why this matters
This case tests the boundaries of Adidas's trademark protection in a jurisdiction where it has previously succeeded on a similar four-stripe claim. The allegation of post-filing digital alteration of product images is a potentially serious piece of evidence that could bear on both the merits (establishing White Fox's awareness of the issue) and any damages assessment. For City lawyers, the case is relevant because White Fox has material UK market presence since 2024 and Adidas is a global brand with English law trademark portfolios, meaning a successful Australian judgment could inform parallel enforcement action in the UK or EU. The case also sits within a wider pattern of established sportswear brands pursuing aggressive trademark enforcement against fast-fashion competitors.
On the Ground
This dispute activates intellectual property (trademark infringement and passing off) and commercial litigation practices. In the UK context, counsel advising global brand owners on cross-border trademark enforcement would monitor this case for its evidentiary approach and damages methodology, both of which are relevant to English court proceedings. A trainee working on a comparable UK trademark matter would assist with disclosure review and categorisation of infringing product evidence, prepare chronologies of the alleged infringement, and help compile trial bundles including side-by-side product comparisons.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“How would you advise a global sportswear brand seeking to enforce its trademark against a fast-fashion competitor that is using a very similar but not identical stripe design across multiple jurisdictions?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeSources
My notes
saved