For decades, the “Three Stripes” of Adidas were considered untouchable. They weren’t just a logo; they were a fortress. Whether you were a small streetwear brand or a global fashion house, if you put parallel lines on a sleeve, you could expect a cease-and-desist letter from Herzogenaurach within the week. But in October 2025, that fortress crumbled. In a ruling that has sent shockwaves through the fashion world, the UK Court of Appeal didn’t just side with the “little guy”—they declared that Adidas’s trademark itself was broken.

The Story: The battle began years ago when luxury designer Thom Browne started using a “Four-Bar” design on his high-end suits and socks. Adidas sued, claiming that consumers would be confused. They argued that “stripes on a sleeve” belonged to them, regardless of the number.

After losing the initial High Court battle, Adidas pinned their hopes on a massive appeal in 2025. They argued that their trademark for “three parallel equally spaced stripes” was broad enough to stop Thom Browne’s four stripes.

On October 24, 2025, the UK Court of Appeal delivered the final fatal blow. The court ruled that Adidas’s trademark description was “too vague.” They noted that Adidas had tried to claim rights over any three stripes, of any length, in any position on a garment. The judges effectively said: “You cannot own the concept of stripes.” By failing to be specific about the exact placement (the “Position Mark” requirement), arguably huge chunks of their trademark portfolio were declared invalid for lack of clarity.

The “Elongated” Lesson: Why does this matter to you? Because it kills the strategy of “Broad Protection.” For years, brands tried to register vague trademarks to scare off competitors (e.g., “We own the color purple” or “We own the shape of a bottle”). The 2025 ruling signals the end of this era. Courts are now demanding precision. If you cannot define exactly where your logo sits on your product (down to the centimeter), you might not own it at all.

This verdict forces every fashion brand to audit their portfolios. If your trademark registration says something generic like “a geometric shape on footwear,” it is now vulnerable to cancellation. You must define the “Scope of Protection” or risk losing it entirely when you try to enforce it.

How ASEAN IPR Helps: Are your trademarks “Adidas-proof” or are they “Thom Browne-ready”? The line between a valid “Position Mark” and a vague claim is razor-thin. At ASEAN IPR, we specialize in the precision drafting required by this new 2025 precedent.

• Portfolio Stress-Testing: We review your existing registrations to see if they suffer from the same “vagueness” that sank Adidas.

• Position Mark Filings: We file specific “Position Marks” in ASEAN countries (like Vietnam and Thailand) that include the exact dotted-line drawings required to secure your design without overreaching.

• Defense Strategy: If a giant competitor bullies you over a generic design element, we use the Thom Browne precedent to fight back and invalidate their claims.