One of the world’s largest sportswear manufacturers, Germany-based Adidas, has launched a high-profile trademark infringement lawsuit against fast-growing Australian online fast fashion retailer White Fox in the Federal Court of Australia, centered on a controversial four-striped design used on White Fox apparel.
Adidas argues that White Fox’s four parallel, equal-width stripe design is “deceptively similar” to its iconic three-striped logo, which the brand has held a registered trademark for in Australia since 1957. In court documents, the global brand notes that its three-striped marking has built a “substantial and valuable reputation” among Australian consumers over nearly seven decades of use.
The legal dispute first emerged in March 2024, when Adidas says it first requested that White Fox cease all production, advertising, and sale of the infringing striped garments. According to Adidas’s legal team, the Sydney-headquartered retailer repeatedly rejected these demands, forcing the sportswear company to pursue formal legal action.
Founded in 2013 by Greek-Australian couple Georgia and Daniel Contos alongside Daniel’s mother Melina Maceri, White Fox has experienced explosive growth in recent years, targeting teen and young adult consumers across Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The brand has built its popularity through a multi-channel marketing strategy that includes out-of-home billboard advertising, bus stop and transit ads, and influencer partnerships with mostly university-aged content creators. Financial data from the Australian Financial Review shows the privately held company generated AU$542 million (£286 million; $377 million) in revenue in the 12 months leading up to June 2025, a fourfold increase from its 2022 revenue of just AU$121 million. It expanded into the UK market in 2024 and continues to scale its presence in North America.
During the first court hearing before Justice Ian Jackman on Friday, legal representatives for White Fox formally denied any trademark violation. While the retailer has not yet submitted a full formal defense, its legal team outlined the core of White Fox’s coming argument: that many other prominent Australian fashion brands, including Cotton On, Sportscraft, and Glassons, already sell apparel featuring similar decorative stripes, implying the design is a generic decorative element rather than an infringing copy of Adidas’s trademark.
As part of its claim, Adidas has submitted extensive visual evidence to the court, including side-by-side product comparisons of its own activewear and White Fox’s striped sweatpants and lounge shorts, photos of White Fox’s transit and billboard advertisements, and screenshots of the retailer’s online product listings. One key piece of evidence that Adidas has highlighted is a June 2025 online listing for White Fox branded socks, which featured a model wearing a pair of genuine pink Adidas sneakers. Adidas argues that this pairing is intentional, designed to lead consumers to believe there is an official partnership or endorsement between the two brands.
Adidas further alleges that after the lawsuit was filed last month, White Fox attempted to cover up this connection: first, the brand digitally edited the Adidas logo on the sneakers in the image to remove one stripe, then removed all three stripes from the image entirely a week later. Adidas’s legal team told the court that White Fox’s actions demonstrate a clear “intention to trade off” Adidas’s long-held global reputation for commercial gain.
Adidas is not a newcomer to trademark litigation over striped designs in Australia. In 2013, the brand successfully won a similar lawsuit against Australian manufacturer Pacific Brands over four-striped footwear, setting a precedent for trademark protection of its iconic stripe design. In the current case, Adidas is seeking financial damages, demanding that White Fox surrender all profits earned from the striped products, plus accumulated interest and legal costs.
The court has scheduled a three-to-four-day full trial to take place in early 2026, where both sides will present their full evidence and legal arguments before a final ruling is issued.