Arc’teryx Wins Injunction Against Adidas Over Store Name

Jennifer Bringle
·3 min read

A year after opening its Terrex store in Vancouver, Adidas must cover part of the outlet’s sign per an injunction by rival sportswear maker Arc’teryx.

The Canadian outdoor label called foul after Adidas opened its store just down the street from the Arc’teryx location in Vancouver’s Kitsilano neighborhood. The Adidas store was identified by signage featuring the company’s triple-stripe performance bar symbol followed by the word Terrex.

More from Sourcing Journal

In February 2023, Arc’teryx parent company Amer Sports, which is planning a public market debut this year, filed a trademark infringement complaint against Adidas in British Columbia supreme court, claiming the Terrex name preceded by a “stylized A” suggested an association between the two businesses—which both sell outerwear—and could cause consumer confusion. In the suit, Amer Sports called for an injunction against Adidas’ use of the Terrex sign, along with damages.

Justice Nigel Kent gave an initial ruling on Jan. 2 in favor of Arc’teryx, citing the fact that Adidas had not trademarked its Terrex brand and conceding that the logo in such close proximity to its competitor could potentially cause confusion.

“The combination of Adidas’ performance bars trademark with the Terrex trademark (i.e., “A Terrex”) has a similar appearance to the Arc’Teryx trademark and appears to have caused some confusion among some casual consumers for which Arc’teryx may have a proper cause of action against Adidas Canada,” he wrote in the decision.

“Adidas knew full well that it did not have a trademark registration in international class 35 for its trademark Terrex when it opened its new store using the performance bars/Terrex combination as the store banner and expressly chose not to use the trademark “Adidas” in that store banner, even though the store was located on the same block just a few doors down from the Arc’Teryx store on Vancouver’s W. 4th Ave.,” Kent continued.

But Kent ruled that the wider case would need to go to trial, and he narrowed the order to apply only to the Kitsilano Terrex location.

Adidas has a long history of trademark disputes, both filed on its behalf and against the company. Most recently, the apparel maker filed a notice of opposition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office in September against Saudi-backed LIV Golf League, claiming its “L” branding resembles Adidas’ 3-Stripe trademark. And in January 2023, fashion label Thom Browne scored a victory against the brand after being sued for trademark infringement over a four-stripe motif. Jurors hearing the case in New York City rejected Adidas’ claim that Browne’s stripes infringed and diluted its trademarks, but the case recently heated up again and go see the pair potentially go to trial.

In this case, Kent ruled that the injunction will be lifted once the court trial begins and also said Arc’terx would have to prove it suffered damages over the signage. He also dismissed Adidas’ claim that it would have to close the Kitsilano store once it covered or changed its sign.

“This is only an interlocutory injunction and is premised upon the parties actually proceeding to trial. It is not meant to be an excuse for the plaintiff to cease the pursuit of its lawsuit so that the interlocutory injunction might effectively become a permanent injunction,” he said.