Its marks were accompanied by written descriptions including “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”. The words in bold are particularly significant to the issues in dispute.

In a judgment handed down on 23 October 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed Adidas’ appeal. The Court of Appeal confirmed that for a sign to be registrable as a trade mark it must meet three conditions:

• first, there must be a sign;
• secondly, that sign must be capable of being represented graphically in a clear and precise manner; and
• thirdly, the sign must be capable of distinguishing the goods/services of one undertaking from another.

The first and second condition were at the heart of Adidas’ appeal.

On the first condition, the Court of Appeal held the written description that “the stripes running along one third or more” encompasses variability in the starting points, ending points and length of the stripes. It encompasses variability in their position in that the stripes could be forward-facing, sideways-facing or rearwards-facing or any gradation between those positions. There was not a single sign but a multitude of different signs mark.

On the second condition, the Court of Appeal held that the garments represented by each trade mark was merely an example of what was being claimed and that the description of the trade marks encompassed numerous unrepresented signs. The trade mark could not, therefore, be said to be clear and precise.

Adidas objected that this ignored the established principle that the mere fact that a trade mark may encompass a number of variations does not automatically render it invalid. The question of validity will depend on the specific facts of the case, the nature of the trade mark and, importantly, whether the relevant public would be confused by the various permutations of a mark as to its origin.

In this case the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that when examining all the possible ways that Adidas’ description of its mark could be visually represented, the public would not see ‘the same mark’. It also found that Adidas could have registered trade marks in which the written description corresponded to what was shown in the pictorial representation (as it has done with other marks which had not been invalidated). However, by registering a single mark accompanied by a description which sought to encompass other variations, Adidas had crossed the line beyond that which was permissible.