The Price of Vagueness: “Three-Stripes” and You’re Out

Even the biggest brands are not safe: vague trade mark registrations risk unenforceability, as adidas has found out in the Court of Appeal.

The UK Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision to invalidate six of adidas’ “three-stripe” position marks for being too vague to define a protectable sign.

Background

The dispute between adidas and Thom Browne began in 2021 when Thom Browne challenged sixteen of adidas’ three-stripe trade marks in the UK and adidas counterclaimed for trade mark infringement and passing off in relation to Thom Browne’s use of a four-striped mark. In the High Court, the judge invalidated eight marks owned by adidas for lack of clarity and dismissed adidas’ counterclaims.

adidas appealed the invalidity decision against six of its “three-stripe” position trade marks, arguing that the law had been misapplied and that the court had overstated the variation amongst  adidas’ “three-stripe” marks.

The focus was on position marks, where the placement of the mark on a product, such as on a sleeve or pant leg, is a key element. The marks consisted of three parallel stripes applied to various parts of garments such as tracksuits, vests, and shorts. Each mark included both a pictorial representation, showing the placement of the stripes, and a written description. One example read: “The mark consists of three parallel equally spaced stripes applied to an upper garment, the stripes running along one third or more of the length of the sleeve of the garment.”

While this might seem straightforward, the combination of images and written descriptions later proved critical. The court examined whether the marks were sufficiently clear and precise enough to define a single, protectable sign, setting the stage for the High Court and Court of Appeal rulings.

On 23 October 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed adidas’ appeal, confirming that their marks were too vague to protect a single, identifiable sign.

A Lesson on Clarity: Why adidas Lost

At the heart of the appeal was the question of what makes a position mark sufficiently clear. At first instance, the High Court accepted that there may be many variations or permutations to a trade mark, and this does not in and of itself lead to invalidity. For example, a word mark can appear in different typefaces and still be seen as the same mark, as long as the average consumer recognises it.

The problem for adidas was that when the images were viewed together with the descriptions, the stripes could appear in multiple positions and of varying lengths, creating a wide range of possible signs rather than one clearly defined mark.

This lack of precision was fatal. The marks failed two key requirements for registrability: they were not clearly identifiable as a single “sign,” and their representation was not “clear, precise, and self-contained,” echoing the Sieckmann criteria for graphical representation.

Arnold LJ, in the Court of Appeal, agreed with the High Court that the marks failed to define a single, specific sign. As explained above, the combination of images and descriptions allowed for multiple variations in stripe placement and length, and terms like “one third or more” created too much uncertainty about exactly where the stripes began, ended, and how they were positioned. This lack of clarity and precision meant the marks could grant adidas an unfair monopoly over the general concept of three-stripes, rather than protecting a clearly defined mark.

A Divergence from EU Decisions

The Court of Appeal’s judgment highlights a potential divergence between the UK and EU approaches to trade mark clarity. As an example, counsel for adidas referred to the General Court’s decision in Andreas Stihl AG & Co v EUIPO (Case T-193/18), where a colour combination applied to a chainsaw was found sufficiently clear and precise. The Court of Appeal noted, however, that Stihl is not assimilated law and was difficult to reconcile with other EU decisions, reflecting the UK’s stricter stance on precision. adidas also relied on favourable rulings from the EUIPO’s Cancellation Division and the District Court of The Hague, but these were given little weight, as the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal had already disagreed with its own Cancellation Division and the decisions remain under appeal. The Court held that such inconsistencies did not undermine the High Court’s reasoning, underscoring the UK courts’ readiness to reach their own conclusions, even where parallel proceedings abroad concern comparable legal principles. This serves as an important reminder that EU decisions are, at best, persuasive in the UK, and brands operating across Europe should not assume that outcomes will align. We therefore recommend that brands seek UK-specific advice to ensure their trade mark strategies remain robust and enforceable under domestic law.

Brand Owners Beware

Clarity is essential. Vague wording or flexible position marks are at risk of being invalidated even for well-known brands. It does not matter how big your brand is or that it is recognised and worn by millions across the world. Ensuring your mark defines a single, specific sign is now non-negotiable. Images and written descriptions must clearly show exactly what is protected. Ambiguity in placement, length, or proportion can leave your marks vulnerable to challenge.

This is a clear reminder for brands to avoid overreaching. Trying to protect a broad concept rather than a specific design feature can backfire, as adidas has found out the hard way. Protect what you actually use and plan to enforce; otherwise you risk losing the registration entirely.

Conclusions and Takeaways

This case shows that even globally recognised brands are not immune to invalidation if their marks lack clarity and precision. Position marks and other non-traditional trade marks require careful drafting and unambiguous descriptions.

Brand owners should review their portfolios and seek specialist advice to ensure their registrations are solid. In trade mark registration, clarity is not optional but essential.