In a London court battle with luxury brand Thom Browne, Adidas was accused of trying to establish a “monopoly on clothing featuring stripes” by threatening fashion designers’ creative freedom.
The New York designer and the sportswear group faced off at the High Court in Wednesday’s latest round of the long-running dispute about stacks of stripes that are printed on items like hoodies or T-shirts.
Thom Browne’s clothes, which feature a four stripe motif, are being sued by Adidas to invalidate the trademarks that cover its three-stripe symbol.
Adidas countersues the fashion brand. It alleges that the seller of high-end clothing, including grey suits for men worn sometimes with shorts, has violated its trademarks.
Lawyers for Adidas told the court that the similarities between the logo, the “iconic identifier”, of their brand and the solid bars employed by the US firm were “obvious”.
Philip Roberts KC representing Thom Browne said Adidas “sought monopolise”, an “abstract generalisation” or “conceptualisation of the three stripes”.
He continued: “The extent of Adidas’ claimed monopoly threatens fashion designers’ basic freedom to design clothes in the way they choose.”
Browne wore his trademark suit and shorts into the courtroom where the judge was able to inspect about twenty garments. Browne is considered one of the most influential fashion designers in the last two decades. His garments were worn by celebrities such as basketball player LeBron and David Bowie.
Thom Browne was launched in New York in 2001 as a small shop “by appointment”. Initially, the clothing featured a three bar motif. The company, which is now part of the Italian family controlled Ermenegildo Zegna Group, has said that it agreed to add a four-bar motif after Adidas complained in 2007.
Adidas filed a lawsuit against Thom Browne in the US and EU in 2021 after it had opposed several trademark applications by Thom Browne in 2018. Last year, a New York jury ruled in favor of Thom Browne.
Roberts wrote in his written arguments that “no other company should have to make the same invidious decision between giving up and spending millions on defending themselves” as Thom Browne did.
He added that despite the millions of dollars spent by Adidas both on the Atlantic and the Pacific, there was no evidence of consumer confusion or deception.
He said that Thom Browne fabrics and tailoring are “of a different order” than Adidas’ mass-market products. However, the judge, Ms Justice Joanna Smith questioned the relevance of quality in the trademark dispute.
Charlotte May KC for Adidas said that in written arguments, there were evidences from members of the public who “have assumed that Adidas is responsible or behind goods” with Thom Browne’s sign.
She said that Adidas’ “tipping-point” had arrived in 2020 when Thom Browne released a line of sportswear “that strikes at the core” of the company.
Post Disclaimer
The following content has been published by Stockmark.IT. All information utilised in the creation of this communication has been gathered from publicly available sources that we consider reliable. Nevertheless, we cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this communication.
This communication is intended solely for informational purposes and should not be construed as an offer, recommendation, solicitation, inducement, or invitation by or on behalf of the Company or any affiliates to engage in any investment activities. The opinions and views expressed by the authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company, its affiliates, or any other third party.
The services and products mentioned in this communication may not be suitable for all recipients, by continuing to read this website and its content you agree to the terms of this disclaimer.