Three stripes
History
Finnish Sport Museum has a pair of footwear from the 1940s with the three stripes by Finnish athletic footwear brand Karhu Sports.The Trefoil logo was designed in 1971 and launched in 1972 with the Adidas SL 72, just in time for the 1972 Summer Olympics held in Munich. This logo lasted until 1997, when the company introduced the "three bars" logo, initially used on the Equipment range of products.
Designs for shoes registered in 1949 incorporated the three stripes along the side.
Branding in sports
In 1998, Adidas sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association over their rules limiting the size and number of commercial logos on team uniforms and apparel. Adidas withdrew the suit, and the two groups established guidelines as to what three-stripe designs would be considered uses of the Adidas trademark.In late 2004, rival sporting good manufacturers filed a complaint to the International Olympic Committee over Adidas being allowed to exceed the 20 cm2 limit permitted for branding with the three stripes. Adidas argued that the trademark device was a design element rather than a logo and despite being an IOC sponsor, which led to accusations of Adidas receiving preferential treatment, the three stripes were banned by the Olympic movement starting with the 2006 Winter Games. However, Adidas circumvented the ban by using a modified three stripe design, combining them with the number 3, for the 2006 Games.
In 2006, Adidas sued All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, other Grand Slam tournaments and the International Tennis Federation over restrictions on manufacturer's identifications placed on player clothing.
Prior to UEFA Euro 2008, the Union of European Football Associations updated its kit regulations to mandate a 'sleeve free zone' on shirts worn under their auspices, to make room for competition markings. This affected Adidas by prohibiting the use of continual stripes down the sleeves. The world footballing governing body, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, implemented similar legislation in time for the 2010 FIFA World Cup.
In popular culture
The musical artist Lady Sovereign references the Three Stripes trademark in her song "Hoodie" from the album Public Warning. The album was released in 2006 and had multiple remixes, again involving references to the Three Stripes trademark.Since the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, Adidas or "the three-striped brand" has been the trademark of the Russian 'gopniks' and therefore being a major subject for hardbass.
Trademark disputes
Adidas has sued or threatened to sue retailers to protect the brand, including the following cases:- 1983: Adidas v Charles O'Neill and Co Ltd 1983 ILRM 112
- 1995: settled a dispute with Walmart
- 2000: Marca Mode v Adidas decided at the European Court of Justice
- 2002: settled with Walmart
- 2003: filed a lawsuit in a British court challenging Fitness World Trading's use of a two-stripe motif similar to Adidas' three stripes
- 2004 : Polo Ralph Lauren
- 2005: Abercrombie & Fitch, in Portland
- 2005 : Dutch Court of Appeal decided that Adidas had not sufficiently demonstrated that the Marca two-stripe design did not infringe, based on the Benelux Trademarks Act.
- 2007 : Dutch Supreme Court ruled in the case Adidas/Marca Mode II that the two stripe of Marca et al. did not infringe the three stripe trade mark of Adidas.
- 2008 : European Court of Justice decided in favour of Adidas, against Marca Mode, C&A, H&M Hennes & Mauritz and Vendex KBB, that two-stripes could infringe on the Adidas three-stripe trademark.
- 2008 : Kmart
- 2008: Payless ShoeSource, ordered to pay $304.6 million; later reduced to $64.4 million. No. 01-CV-01655-RE.
- 2008 : Wal-Mart Stores Inc., third confidential settlement
- 2009: Aldo Group Inc., filed 14 January in federal court in Portland, claiming a breach of out-of-court settlements between the companies in 2004 and 2006. Adidas America Inc. v. Aldo Group Inc., 3:09- cv-00056
- 2014: Adidas successfully registers the three-stripe design at the European Union level.
- 2016: The EU's Intellectual Property Office annuls the 2014 registration on the grounds that it was not distinctive enough.
- 2019: EU General Court upholds the 2016 decision of the EUIPO stating that it did not have enough "distinctive character" to qualify for the trademark.