Adidas sues Australian label White Fox over four stripes design

German sportswear giant Adidas filed a complaint against Sydney‑based online retailer White Fox, arguing that the Australian label’s use of four parallel stripes on clothing and accessories is “deceptively similar” to Adidas’s well‑known three‑stripe trademark. The case, which sits in a court presided over by Justice Ian Jackman, represents the first major legal challenge White Fox has faced and may set a new precedent for how stripe motifs are treated under Australian trademark law.

Adidas first made its complaint in September, following a series of attempts to stop White Fox from selling the contested items. The German company claims it asked the Australian retailer to cease sales on 19 March and that a representative purchased a pair of White Fox lounge shorts the next day to document the alleged infringement. Adidas has gathered evidence, including photographs of White Fox’s bus‑side billboards and social‑media ads that feature models wearing Adidas shoes alongside the four‑stripe garments. In one instance, Adidas alleges the retailer later digitally removed a stripe from the shoes in promotional images, a detail that has drawn particular attention from observers of the case.

Media additions

Fashion feud: Adidas aims to tear stripes off White Fox

White Fox, founded in 2013 by Georgia and Daniel Contos and co‑owned with Daniel’s mother Melina Maceri, has grown into a major player in the online fashion market. Its catalogue of hoodies, sweatpants and lounge shorts — many emblazoned with a bubble‑font logo — has resonated with teenagers and young adults across Australia, the UK and the US. The retailer’s marketing budget reached $52 million in the year to June 2025, and it generated AU$542 million in sales during the same period. Despite a recent fine of $187,800 for late account filing, White Fox has not yet been ordered to stop selling the disputed products.

White Fox’s legal team, led by barrister Ed Heerey KC, argues that the four stripes are merely decorative and that other Australian labels, such as Princess Polly, Glassons and Shein, also use similar stripe patterns without infringing Adidas.

Both sides have provided the court with side‑by‑side comparisons of their products. Adidas has highlighted sweatpants, lounge shorts and socks, while White Fox has pointed to its own range of apparel. The court will scrutinise whether the visual similarity is likely to cause confusion among consumers, a key test in trademark disputes. The case also raises the question of whether White Fox’s advertising, particularly images that pair its garments with Adidas shoes, creates an impression of endorsement or partnership that Adidas claims it does not.

Adidas’s legal strategy is not limited to the striping issue. It also seeks a declaration that White Fox has breached trademark law and an order to pay the profits earned on the disputed products, plus interest and costs.

Meanwhile, White Fox has faced its own intellectual‑property challenges, including cease‑and‑desist notices for unauthorized use of its photos on resale platforms and disputes over counterfeit hoodies. The retailer’s legal counsel, Gilbert and Tobin, declined to comment on the current case, though the firm has previously defended the brand against other IP claims.

Adidas’s complaint also touches on the broader trend of fashion brands policing stripe motifs worldwide. The company’s history of aggressive enforcement, illustrated by its 2013 win against Pacific Brands, shows a willingness to use the courts to protect its visual identity. Whether the court will extend that precedent to cover clothing with four stripes remains to be seen.

What follows is a clear timeline of the key dates in the dispute:

• 19 March 2026 – Adidas asks White Fox to stop selling four‑stripe items.
• 20 March 2026 – Adidas representative purchases a pair of White Fox lounge shorts.
• April‑June 2026 – Adidas collects photographs of White Fox bus‑side ads.
• May‑July 2026 – White Fox supplies 12 four‑stripe items to Adidas representatives.
• 18 September 2026 – Adidas files the complaint in the Federal Court.
• 9 October 2026 – First case‑management hearing before Justice Ian Jackman.
• Early 2027 – Expected trial.

What to watch next:

• The court’s ruling on whether the four‑stripe designs constitute an infringement of Adidas’s trademark.
• Any potential settlement or interim orders that may halt White Fox’s sales immediately.
• How the outcome could affect other fashion brands that use stripe motifs, especially in the fast‑fashion segment.

Adidas’s legal action against White Fox underscores the ongoing clash between global sportswear giants and nimble, digitally driven retailers. The case will test the limits of trademark protection in an industry where design elements often overlap. For now, the courtroom will decide whether the four stripes are simply a fashion statement or a deliberate appropriation of a decades‑old brand identity.