Adidas is taking on one of Australia’s homegrown fashion success stories.

The German sportswear giant has sued White Fox Boutique in the Federal Court, alleging trade mark infringement. Adidas AG and Adidas Australia Pty Ltd filed the claim on 18 September.

The case is Adidas Australia & Anor v White Fox Boutique Pty Ltd, and has been docketed to Justice Jackman.

Adidas’ statement of claim isn’t public yet. So, we don’t know which products are in the firing line, or which marks have allegedly been infringed.

Adidas owns hundreds of registered trade marks in Australia, including various configurations of its three-stripe mark, its Trefoil logo and its ‘badge of sport’ logo. White Fox owns seven, including the ‘White Fox’ word mark.

Based on Adidas’ track record, the consensus is that the claim will centre on White Fox designs with stripe motifs allegedly similar to Adidas’ three-stripe mark.

Founded by Georgia and Daniel Contos in 2013, White Fox started out as an eBay reselling business. It’s now worth more than $1bn.

Sales are booming. Revenue hit $542m in FY25, up 27.5% and four times its FY22 result. Profit is another story. Net profit slipped 10% to $93.8m, with US tariffs driving a 49% jump in costs to almost $290m. The owners still pocketed a $35.4m dividend, less than half of the prior year’s $76m.

White Fox hasn’t faced high-profile litigation like this before. But it’s no stranger to IP enforcement, having sent cease-and-desist letters and take-down notices to resellers on Depop and Poshmark over unauthorised use of its photos.

This isn’t Adidas’ first rodeo.

In 2013, it beat Pacific Brands in the Federal Court over Pacific’s Dunlop and Grosby shoes, even though they had four stripes, not three. Justice Robertson found consumers had been conditioned to read side markings on sports shoes as a sign of brand origin, and some of Pacific Brands’ designs came too close to Adidas’ registered mark.

Offshore, it’s been a different story.

In 2023, a New York jury rejected Adidas’ infringement claims and $7m damages bid against Thom Browne over the luxury label’s four-bar stripe design. The Second Circuit upheld the verdict. In the UK, the High Court and Court of Appeal sided with Thom Browne too, finding several of Adidas’ position marks invalid for being too vague and broad.

Perhaps these losses suggest that courts may be reluctant to hand Adidas a monopoly over parallel lines.

White Fox will be hoping Australia follows suit.

Mallesons is acting for Adidas, while Gilbert + Tobin is on the record for White Fox Boutique.

Source: Federal Court, Australasian Lawyer, The Australian, Lawyerly, AFR