garments. The High Court concluded that eight of the registrations were invalid because the interplay between the written descriptions and the images did not produce a single, clearly defined sign. Instead, the descriptions were drafted in a way that opened up multiple possible versions of the mark, exceeding what the illustrations conveyed.
The difficulty arose because the descriptions permitted wide variations in length, direction, and positioning of the stripes. Although the images showed a single execution, the wording allowed many more, generating uncertainty about where the boundaries of the registration lay.
“A trade mark
registration must define a single sign and must do so with sufficient clarity and precision that others can
understand its scope.”
The High Court also decided that Thom Browne’s four-stripe design did not infringe those Adidas’ marks that remained valid, finding that the scope of protection could not be expanded through interpretation to cover what the registrations did not capture precisely.
Adidas appealed the invalidation of six position marks: two covering stripes placed along the sleeve of a tracksuit top; two covering stripes applied down the leg of trousers; and
What this means for footwear and fashion brands 1) Alignment
For businesses, the judgment reinforces the need for accuracy in how positional identifiers are defined for registration. Many brands rely on repeated placement of stripes or other small visual elements to build association with consumers.
If the written description accompanying a trade mark application extends beyond what is depicted, the registration risks being viewed as covering several possible signs rather than a single, identifiable one.
This highlights the importance of internal alignment when developing a new identifier. The creative concept chosen at the design stage must be expressed with equal precision in the trade mark application. If the representation and description diverge, the resulting vagueness may undermine the protection the brand expects to secure. A broader description can seem appealing, but this case illustrates that such drafting may dilute rather than reinforce the effectiveness of the mark.
2) Consistency
The judgment also underscores the role of consistency in the long-term viability of positional marks. If a brand applies a supposed identifier in multiple, materially different ways across collections, it may weaken the stability of the sign.
As fashion generally increasingly relies
two covering stripes positioned along the side of a vest.
The written descriptions supporting these marks included wording such as, “three parallel equally spaced stripes… running along one third or more of the sleeve”. Similar variations appeared across the registrations. This “one third or more” phrasing introduced an open scale of possibilities. It meant the stripes could begin and end at different points, and could run to differing lengths, while still falling within the description. The images, however, depicted a single arrangement. This disconnect proved central to the Court of Appeal’s reasoning.
on cross-category experimentation, limited editions, and collaborative capsules, the predictability of any placement-based feature becomes more important. A sign intended to serve as an indicator of origin needs repeated and uniform use if it is to retain distinctiveness.
3) Familiarity is not enough The decision also clarifies that recognition in the market does not offset representational deficiencies in the trade mark register. A motif or placement may be well known, but if the registration documents do not define it with sufficient precision, that recognition cannot fill the gap. For brands operating internationally, this may prompt a review of portfolios to ensure that registrations for positional elements are framed in a manner capable of withstanding similar scrutiny elsewhere.
4) The need for discipline The Court of Appeal’s judgment shows that positional trademarks require a disciplined approach to definition, representation, and use. Brands need to consider how they frame the boundaries of their visual identity, how these boundaries are recorded in the register, and how consistently the sign is executed across products. Careful definition and coherent application can help ensure that such registrations remain effective over time.
The Court of Appeal’s decision The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s findings. It emphasised that a trade mark registration must define a single sign and must do so with sufficient clarity and precision that others can understand its scope. The appealed marks failed on both counts.
The statutory requirement that a sign be represented in a clear and precise manner is intended to avoid uncertainty about what a registration protects. Where the description creates a broad set of potential manifestations, the registration no longer anchors a single sign. The Court accepted that some variation may fall within a single sign, provided that the variations remain within coherent boundaries. But here the descriptions created a range of permutations far beyond what could reasonably be regarded as a single identifier. The gap between the images and the wording meant they did not operate together to convey one stable sign. The Court of Appeal therefore confirmed that the registrations did not satisfy the representational requirements of trade mark law.
Stephen Sidkkin is a partner, Scott Steinberg is a legal director, and Charlotte King is an associate at Fox Williams LLP (
www.fashionlaw.co.uk;
www.foxwilliams.com).
DOWNLOAD THE FOOTWEAR TODAY APP NOW SPONSORED BY FEBRUARY 2026 • FOOTWEAR TODAY • 47
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
