Legal Battle Lines: What’s at Stake?
Adidas’ Position:
Adidas, whose three-parallel-stripe design is recognized worldwide, has spent decades—and millions of dollars—protecting its signature look. The company claims Madden’s two-band Viento and “K”-shaped Janos shoes are likely to confuse consumers, potentially diluting the Adidas brand and harming its reputation.
Steve Madden’s Counterattack:
In its lawsuit, Steve Madden argues that Adidas is trying to “monopolize common design features” and that the use of bands or stripes is “ubiquitous in the fashion industry.” Madden’s filing asserts:
“Simply put, Adidas does not own all stripes and should not be allowed to claim that it has a monopoly on all footwear that includes stripes, bars, bands or any shape having four sides—parallel, straight or not.”
Madden claims Adidas has a long history of threatening competitors, and that enough is enough:
“Steve Madden has grown tired of Adidas’ decades of complaints about footwear whose designs bear no resemblance to its three-stripe design.”
The legal friction reflects a broader industry tension: How much protection should a single company have over a basic design motif? Should any company have the power to dictate the use of stripes, bands, or bars in fashion?
Trademark attorney Lisa Chang (not involved in the litigation) notes,
“Trademark law protects against consumer confusion, but it can’t give companies the exclusive right to basic design elements that are functional or generic.”
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has sided with Adidas in the past, but the scope of that protection is being put to the test. Madden’s lawsuit challenges not only Adidas’ position, but also the broader standards used to evaluate design marks across the entire footwear sector.
