Parties Involved:

• Claimants/Part 20 Claimants:
  1. Thom Browne Inc (a Delaware-based company).
  2. Thom Browne UK Limited.
• Defendants/Part 20 Claimants:
  1. Adidas AG (Germany-based company).
  2. Adidas International Marketing B.V. (Netherlands-based company).
  3. Adidas (UK) Limited.
  4. Adidas International Trading AG (Switzerland-based company).

Representation:

• For the Claimants: Mr. Philip Roberts KC and Mr. Edward Cronan, instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP.
• For the Defendants: Ms. Charlotte May KC and Mr. Maxwell Keay, instructed by Hogan Lovells International LLP.

Hearing Details:

• Hearing Dates: 17, 18, 19, 23, and 24 July 2024.
• Judgment Date: 22 November 2024.
• Presiding Judge: Mrs. Justice Joanna Smith DBE.

Key Facts:

• Thom Browne, a luxury fashion brand, was accused by Adidas of infringing its iconic “three-stripe” trademark with its “Four-Bar Design.”
• Adidas claimed trade mark infringement and passing off, while Thom Browne countered that its design was distinct and non-infringing.
• Adidas also asserted eight trade marks, primarily involving three-stripe designs, which were challenged by Thom Browne.

Main Legal Issues:

1. Trade Mark Infringement: Whether Thom Browne’s “Four-Bar Design” constituted an infringement of Adidas’ “three-stripe” trade marks.
2. Validity of Adidas’ Trade Marks: Whether Adidas’ trade marks complied with statutory clarity and precision requirements.
3. Passing Off: Whether Thom Browne’s branding misled consumers to associate its products with Adidas.
4. Distinctiveness and Market Context: How the crowded market for striped designs affects trademark distinctiveness.
5. Scope of Protection for Position Marks: The applicability of protection for trade marks in specific design positions.

Observations:

• The court held that an “average, reasonably observant consumer” would distinguish between Thom Browne’s four stripes and Adidas’ three stripes.
• It was found that several of Adidas’ trade marks lacked clarity and precision, failing statutory requirements for validity.
• The case highlighted the limitations of monopoly over common design elements, like stripes, in a competitive market.
• The judgment emphasized the relevance of post-sale consumer perception and honest concurrent use.

Decision:

• The High Court ruled in favor of Thom Browne, finding no infringement or passing off.
• Eight of Adidas’ asserted trade marks were invalidated due to lack of clarity and precision.
• The decision reaffirms the importance of distinctiveness and appropriate registration in trade mark law.