Nike and Adidas, two giants in the sportswear industry, have a long history of competition and innovation. Nike, founded in 1964 in the US, is known for its cutting-edge designs and marketing. Adidas, established in 1949 in Germany, is famous for its iconic three-stripe design. These companies have not only competed in the market but also in the courtroom, with recent legal disputes focusing on trademark infringement, particularly regarding the design of sports trousers.
Adidas’ Trademark Infringement Claim
In 2022, Adidas took legal action against Nike, alleging that five pairs of sports trousers introduced by Nike featured designs that closely mimicked Adidas’ iconic three-stripe pattern. Adidas argued that these designs infringed upon its trademark rights, which are crucial to its brand identity and consumer recognition. The three-stripe motif, prominently displayed on Adidas products, has been a hallmark of the brand since its inception and represents a significant element of its competitive edge.
Adidas’ claim was taken seriously by the Düsseldorf regional court in Germany. The court initially sided with Adidas, issuing an order that banned Nike from selling the trousers in question within the German market. This decision was a significant victory for Adidas, reinforcing the importance of its trademark and the legal protections afforded to it.
Nike’s Appeal
Unwilling to accept the regional court’s ruling, Nike decided to appeal the decision. The company argued that the designs of the disputed trousers did not infringe on Adidas’ trademark rights and that the ruling was overly broad. Nike’s appeal sought to overturn the ban and allow the continued sale of the trousers in Germany.
In September 2023, the Düsseldorf regional court upheld its initial decision, maintaining the ban on the sale of the trousers. However, Nike persisted, taking the case to a higher court, the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, for a final resolution.
The legal battle between Nike and Adidas over the design of sports trousers highlights the intense competition and high stakes in the sportswear industry. Trademark protection is a critical aspect of brand strategy for companies like Nike and Adidas, whose logos and design elements are instantly recognizable to consumers worldwide. The outcome of this case not only impacts the immediate sales and branding efforts of the companies involved but also sets a precedent for future trademark disputes in the fashion and sportswear sectors.
As the case moved to the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, both companies awaited a definitive ruling that would determine the fate of the disputed trousers and potentially reshape the landscape of trademark protection in the industry. This legal confrontation underscores the importance of distinctive branding and the ongoing efforts of major companies to protect their intellectual property in a highly competitive market
Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court’s Ruling
The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court partially overturned the Düsseldorf Regional Court’s ruling. The court confirmed that one of the Nike trousers infringed on Adidas’ trademark rights due to the similarity in design, but dismissed the claims against four other pairs of trousers.
The key aspect of the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court’s decision was its emphasis on the specific design elements and the overall context of the garment, rather than just the presence of stripe patterns. The court stated: “It is undisputed that Adidas brands its sportswear with three vertical stripes of equal width on the sides, each one equidistant from the other. The relevant public is used to this and sometimes sees it as a reference to Adidas. However, this does not mean that every stripe pattern on the side, regardless of its specific design or the rest of the garment’s design, is attributed to Adidas.”
This ruling suggests that the court is taking a more nuanced approach to determining trademark infringement, recognizing that not all stripe patterns are exclusively associated with Adidas. The court’s consideration of factors such as the specific design of the stripes, the overall design of the garment, and the presence of other brand features indicates a willingness to balance trademark protection with fair competition in the industry.
Legal Implications
The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court’s ruling aligns with the principle established in the landmark European Court of Justice case Adidas AG v. Marca Mode, where the court ruled that a trademark consisting of three parallel stripes does not prohibit the use of any stripe motif, but only the use of a motif that has the same or a similar visual impression.
However, the court’s decision also highlights the challenges faced by trademark holders in the fashion industry. While Adidas has aggressively defended its three-stripe mark, the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court’s ruling suggests that the scope of protection for such common design elements may be narrower than Adidas had hoped.
The Shoe Branding Europe v. Adidas case further underscores these challenges. In that case, the EUIPO’s Second Board of Appeal agreed with Shoe Branding Europe’s argument that Adidas’ three-stripe mark lacked the required “secondary meaning” or “acquired distinctiveness” to be protected as a trademark. This decision suggests that even well-known trademarks can be vulnerable if the trademark holder fails to maintain their distinctiveness in the eyes of consumers.
These rulings raise critical questions about the balance between trademark protection and fair competition in the fashion industry. While trademark holders like Adidas have a legitimate interest in protecting their brand identity, the courts have shown a willingness to limit the scope of protection for common design elements to ensure that competitors can still use them in a non-confusing manner.
Impact on Nike and Adidas
The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court’s ruling represents a partial victory for Nike, allowing it to continue selling most of the disputed trousers. For Adidas, the decision partially validates its trademark rights, but also highlights the need for the company to demonstrate a clear likelihood of consumer confusion to successfully enforce its mark against competitors’ use of stripe designs.
The case also has implications for Adidas’ ongoing dispute with Nike over shoe designs in Europe. In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Nike’s appeal in a longstanding shoe design infringement dispute with Adidas, leaving the European courts to continue grappling with the complexities of trademark protection in the sportswear industry.
The legal dispute between Adidas and Nike over stripe designs on sportswear highlights the complex balance between trademark protection and fair competition in the fashion industry. While Adidas has aggressively defended its three-stripe trademark, recent court rulings suggest a more nuanced approach to evaluating infringement. The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court’s decision to partially overturn a previous ruling against Nike indicates that courts are considering specific design elements and overall context, rather than broadly prohibiting all stripe patterns. This case underscores the challenges faced by trademark holders in protecting common design elements while allowing for fair competition and may have significant implications for future trademark disputes in the sportswear industry.
Written by Nissy James, legal intern @intepat.
