Thom Browne v Adidas: Court of Appeal strikes down six three-stripe trademarks over unclear descriptions
Thom BrownevAdidas
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Judgment
- 23 October 2025
- Citation
- [2025] EWCA Civ 1340
A trademark's written description can't promise more than its picture actually shows.
Adidas appealed a ruling that six of its three-stripe position trademarks were invalid. Thom Browne won again, with the Court of Appeal agreeing the written descriptions were too vague to describe a single clear sign.
What happened
Thom Browne challenged 16 of adidas' three-stripe trademarks covering clothing, footwear, bags and hats, arguing they weren't valid trademarks. The High Court found eight of them invalid. The problem was the written descriptions, which said things like the stripes could run "one third or more" of a sleeve's length, went well beyond what the accompanying pictures actually showed. That created confusion about what the sign really protected. Adidas appealed the invalidity finding on six of those marks to the Court of Appeal.
What did the court decide in Thom Browne v Adidas?
The Court of Appeal dismissed adidas' appeal. It held the judge had made no error of law in finding the marks failed two basic requirements: that a trademark must be a single, identifiable sign, and that it must be represented clearly and precisely. The written descriptions allowed for many different stripe positions, lengths and start and end points that weren't shown in the pictures at all. That gap between words and image meant the marks weren't clear or precise enough, and it gave adidas an unfair advantage by effectively covering more ground than the registration showed.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that if you register a position mark, logo or tagline with both a picture and a written description, the two need to match. The moment the words claim more than the image shows, you risk the whole registration unravelling.
- If you're relying on a written description to broaden what a picture protects, it's worth checking that description doesn't introduce variations nobody can actually see in the mark as filed.
- This only affects marks where the description and the picture pull apart. Adidas' other three-stripe registrations, where the two line up, weren't touched by this decision.
- Position marks (where protection depends on where a design sits on a product) are still valid in principle. This case was about how precisely you describe the position, not whether position marks can exist at all.
Things to be aware of
- This ruling turns on how these six marks happened to be drafted. Marks where the written description matches the picture, including adidas' other three-stripe registrations, were unaffected.
- Eight marks were invalidated at first instance but only six were under appeal here, so the full picture of which adidas registrations survive needs checking against the original ruling too.
The businesses involved
Thom Browne Inc
Fashion house known for using four parallel stripes on its clothing. It successfully defended against adidas' trademark claims in both UK and US proceedings.
- Note
- Registered outside the UK
Adidas AG
Sportswear manufacturer with a large portfolio of UK trademarks protecting its three-stripe branding across clothing, footwear and accessories.
- Note
- Registered outside the UK
What happened next
- Mishcon de Reya, which acted for Thom Browne, described the ruling as confirming that designers remain free to use multiple stripe motifs without infringing adidas' rights.Source: Mishcon, November 2024
What others said about it
- Mishcon de Reya called this the first case to test the validity requirements for UK position marks, framing it as a precision problem for brand owners drafting descriptions.Source: Mishcon de Reya LLP, November 2025
- Fieldfisher said the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the High Court, rejecting adidas' attempt to defend descriptions that outran what the pictures actually showed.Source: Fieldfisher, December 2025
- IPKat reported Thom Browne was largely successful overall, with eight adidas position marks invalidated and its infringement and passing off claims rejected.Source: IPKat, October 2025
How we can help
If something in this case sounds familiar, talk it through with us. The first call is free for new clients.
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Summary drafted with AI assistance from the published judgment and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Judgment: [2025] EWCA Civ 1340 on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 26 October 2026. Report an error.
