In the latest chapter of adidas’ aggressive trademark enforcement efforts, Steve Madden is asking a New York federal court to declare that its latest sneaker designs – which feature two non-parallel bands and a stylized “K” shape – do not infringe the German sportswear giant’s famed “Three-Stripe Mark.” In the declaratory judgment lawsuit it filed this week with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Steve Madden accuses adidas of engaging in “illegal and anticompetitive efforts to monopolize common design features in the fashion industry.”
According to the May 21 complaint, Steve Madden’s VIENTO and JANOS sneakers, which it refers to as the “Divergent Band Design” and the “K-Design,” do not feature three stripes, parallel elements, or anything likely to confuse consumers. New York-based Steve Madden alleges that it has been targeted by adidas since at least 2002, and against that background, it is seeking judicial clarity to end a decades-long pattern of legal threats, including recent objections lodged with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office over Madden’s trademark application for the K-Design.
A Pattern of Enforcement
In its complaint, Steve Madden provides a pointed critique of adidas’ enforcement tactics, characterizing them as overreaching, monopolistic, and designed to “intimidate competitors and seek to maintain monopoly power.” Adidas “does not own all stripes,” Madden states, arguing that the German sportswear giant “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.”
Backing up its claim, Madden states that there are dozens of footwear manufacturers, many of which use visual elements such as stripes and contract stitching on the sides of their sneakers, a prominent design space in sneaker construction. “Design features on this area of the shoe can include, but are not limited to, elements such as patterns, overlays, underlays, and bands, stripes or lines,” Madden asserts, framing its own design as part of a larger industry practice and adidas’ enforcement as a threat to industry-wide design freedom.
Steve Madden maintains that it is not alone in being targeted by adidas; it points to other high-profile enforcement actions by the sportswear giant, including its ultimately unsuccessful trademark lawsuit against Thom Browne (whose counsel at Wolf Greenfield filed the complaint at hand). In that case, a jury sided with Thom Browne, rejecting adidas’ claim that the American fashion brand’s use of four horizontal bars was likely to cause consumer confusion.
Putting adidas’ efforts in perspective, Madden cites the court’s decision in Adidas-America, Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., which found that “since 1995, adidas has pursued over 325 infringement matters involving the Three-Stripe mark in the United States, filed more than 35 separate lawsuits for infringement of the Three-Stripe [M]ark, and entered into more than 45 settlement agreements with companies selling infringing footwear.”
The Disputed Designs
Madden’s VIENTO and JANOS designs, which Steve Madden launched in March and May 2025 respectively, make use of asymmetrical elements that the company argues are distinct from adidas’ trademarks. Notably, the JANOS sneaker’s K-Design is the subject of a pending trademark application that adidas has already moved to oppose. Adidas’ opposition, according to Madden, makes use of mischaracterizations, including calling the K-Design a “two-stripe design.” Madden says that this reflects either a “misunderstanding” or a strategic attempt by adidas to fit the Steve Madden design within its rights in its three-stripe mark.
The complaint emphasizes that Steve Madden’s branding is clearly and prominently displayed on the products and packaging, and that there has been no evidence of consumer confusion. “Consumers cannot purchase Steve Madden’s footwear without encountering the STEVE MADDEN trademark,” the company asserts.
With the foregoing in mind, Steve Madden is seeking declaratory relief on four counts: non-infringement of adidas’ federally registered trademarks, no trade dress infringement, no infringement of common law marks, and no unfair competition.
What’s at Stake
The crux of this case goes beyond a pair of sneakers to the scope of trademark protection in an industry where design elements like stripes are ubiquitous. Steve Madden’s case will hinge on its argument that functional and ornamental features – like non-parallel bands or stylized overlays – should remain in the public domain unless they are inherently distinctive or have acquired secondary meaning.
This dispute lands at a time when apparel and footwear companies continue to wrestle with the boundaries of design protection (sometimes to their detriment), especially as brands seek to stretch aesthetics into the realm of trademarks. Adidas’ expansive interpretation of its three-stripe mark – and its effort to enforce that mark against a wide swathe of stripe-based designs – raises broader concerns about anti-competitive behavior and the monopolization of basic design vocabulary, as Steve Madden highlights.
Steve Madden’s preemptive legal action highlights the growing pushback from brands that are increasingly willing to contest aggressive IP enforcement tactics in court – and underscores a larger conversation about how far trademark law should reach into the world of design.
The case is Steven Madden, Ltd. v. Adidas AG et al., 1:25-cv-02847 (EDNY).
Share
