
Adidas is suing Australian fashion label White Fox in Federal Court for selling clothing with a four-stripe design it claims is deceptively similar to its trademarked three-stripe logo, seeking damages and alleging consumer confusion since March despite repeated cease-and-desist requests.
AI-generated summary
Adidas has held a trademark for its three-stripe design in Australia since 1957 and claims it has substantial reputation in the market. White Fox is an Australian fast-fashion retailer popular with young consumers in Australia, the UK, and the US.
Adidas is suing Australian label White Fox for selling and advertising clothes with a four-striped design, arguing it is "deceptively similar" to the German brand's distinct logo.
The sportswear giant said it had repeatedly asked White Fox to stop selling and promoting the clothes since March, but the Sydney-based company refused.
The fast-fashion online retailer is popular with teenagers and young adults in Australia, the UK and the US, and has relied on billboards, bus advertising and influencers - often university-aged - to grow its profile.
The Australian law firms representing Adidas and White Fox both declined to comment on the case, the first hearing due to begin on Friday.
In Federal Court documents, Adidas states that its three-striped design has a "substantial and valuable reputation" in Australia, where it has been trademarked since 1957.
The company says since at least March, White Fox has been selling and advertising clothes with four parallel stripes of equal width, which it claims is an infringement of Adidas's trademark.
White Fox's designs are "substantially identical with or otherwise deceptively similar" to Adidas, the company claims.
It also argues that White Fox's advertisements for its four-striped clothes and White Fox-branded socks feature people wearing "genuine" Adidas items.
This might lead Australians to think Adidas is associated with White Fox and has approved of the design, the documents claim.
The company says White Fox is "taking advantage" of Adidas's reputation, "drawing an association in the minds of consumers" of the two brands, or at least "sailing close to the wind".
Adidas, which reported €24.8 billion (£21bn; $28bn) in revenue in 2025, is also seeking damages, saying White Fox must pay them the profit from the products plus interest and costs.
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
The Federal Court will issue a preliminary ruling on whether White Fox must cease selling the four-striped designs
Likely · Within weeks

According to the principle decision published in the Official Gazette, employers do not have the right to unlimited supervision of employees' communication tools belonging to the employer. The audit scope, access conditions and data retention period must be communicated to the employee in advance; Content control can only be carried out in exceptional cases requiring mandatory access.

Member of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation Vadim Vinogradov explained that early payment of pension savings is possible if there are grounds for the early assignment of an old-age insurance pension, but depends on the amount of savings and length of service: in the absence of 15 years of experience or 30 IPC, the payment is a lump sum, regardless of the amount, and with the estimated amount of the funded pension no more than 10% of the federal subsistence level of the pensioner in 2026 (up to 439 776 rubles) a one-time payment is also provided; otherwise, a monthly funded pension or an urgent payment is assigned for certain types of savings.

Entrusted by Liuzhou Customs, Guangxi Materials Auction Co., Ltd. will publicly auction a Gui B9U823 Trumpchi commercial vehicle on the JD.com online auction platform from October 12 to 13, 2026. The subject is an old motor vehicle that has been confiscated by the customs in accordance with the law. The buyer must handle the transfer and bear the relevant taxes and fees on his own. The display will be from October 9 to 10, and the location will be at the Liuzhou Customs Warehouse.

At the Istanbul 33rd High Criminal Court, the undetained defendant Deniz Dörtyol argued that he was forced to pay bills through Kültür AŞ and Medya AŞ, and that he was forced to pay with threats during the dismantling of advertising areas and the tender process; He stated that he had to pay all invoices issued by Kültür AŞ between 2019-2021.
The Supreme Court criticized Jharkhand's DGP appointment process for violating its Prakash Singh judgement on residual tenure requirements, issued a notice to Tadasha Mishra appointed a day before retirement, and directed the state to revisit its 2025 regulations while allowing it to file a counter-affidavit in defense.

At the hearing at the Istanbul 33rd High Criminal Court, the defendant Ali Nuhoğlu argued that it was wrong to carry out the Cebeci dump site operations through a single person and that more appropriate results could be achieved with the management of İSFALT. He also stated that Ekrem İmamoğlu had knowledge of the purchase process of two villas in Sarıyer, that they were purchased at the request of Tuncay Yılmaz and that he paid 31 million lira. He stated that Murat Gülibrahimoğlu put pressure on the municipal bureaucrats and that Fatih Keleş acted as Ekrem İmamoğlu's advisor.