A judge in the Southern District of New York on Monday denied Adidas ‘ request for a new test in its logo debate with fashion brand Thom Browne Inc. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff determined that newly discovered emails, including those sent by company founder and head custom Thom Browne, do not warrant a new trial.
Rakoff, who is tasked with Jim Trotter’s retribution lawsuit against the NFL, acknowledged that the letters should have been shared during the preliminary hearing. However, he did n’t find them particularly damning and did n’t view Thom Browne’s actions as sufficiently blameworthy.
Thome Browne, a trademarked three-stripe design with three horizontal lines, is accused of violating it by Adidas. Instead of having a three-stripe architecture, Thomson Browne’s apparel has four parallel bars in red, white, and blue. The issue centers on whether users are confused by how similar or dissimilar the two styles are.

The bank’s 58-year-old creator, Browne, is a famous designer. His attire has been worn by former First Lady Michelle Obama and LeBron James, and his firm has provided team clothes to the Cleveland Cavaliers and other groups.
A judge heard the case in 2023. After an eight-day test that included witness from 16 testimony and more than 400 information displays, the judge sided with Thom Browne. The Second Circuit upheld the court’s ruling afterdidas filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals, which the Second Circuit did a few months ago.
Adidas was informed of Thom Browne’s inaction during the pretrial discovery approach when it was pursuing its appeal. An Adidas lawyer discovered the letters in a distinct British court case involving Thom Browne. Adidas insists these letters show that Thom Browne people knew the four-bar style” had been confused” with the three-stripe style.
A Thom Browne account manager wrote in one of the emails,” We try to avoid rows of 4 bar amended on the racks so that they do n’t look like Adidas.”
A business executive wrote to Browne about creating formalwear and equipment for FC Barcelona in an email that read,” I wanted to know your thoughts on the use of 4bar for FCB dressing for gamers.” Before another team start yelling at you with this issue, I wanted to raise a symbol right away. Our 4bar in bright should always learn” Adidas colors,” especially on jewelry, because the sport has quite a large presence in the sporting world.
An FC Barcelona individual who wrote that “any four restaurants… is too much in the heart of Adidas” is even quoted in one email.
Browne, in an email, commented,” ]I ] thought ]a company official ] has already said that we should n’t use the four bar because of adidas… please confirm with matt and then we can proceed … maybe it would be safer to just make the rwb stripes bigger and proceed …”

Rakoff thought that the emails rarely sparked any guns.
He noted that an FC Barcelona staff believing a pattern is” too much in the heart of Adidas” may be “relevant” to the lawful evaluation,” but it is far from an admission that Thom Browne agreed”.
Rakoff more distinguished the appropriate legal standard—likelihood of confusion—with an informal common of” too much in the heart of Adidas”.
Likewise, Rakoff reasoned that emails discussing the need for Thom Browne to” not look like Adidas” do n’t show consumer confusion, which is an objective standard. Instead, they reveal a person’s personal opinion of potential misunderstandings risks.
Rakoff also noted that these emails appear to be much less significant than the demo jury’s survey data. That data, which included a poll of 2, 400 consumers in the U. S. and that claimed to identify some degree of consumer confusion for between 14 % and 38.6 % of those surveyed, represented “much more directly relevant evidence”, Rakoff wrote.
The judge argued that” these actual consumers ‘ opinions would probably have been much more powerful than those expressed in the four emails if the jury had been willing to accept the possibility that there was a risk of confusion between the two marks.”
Rakoff also emphasized the justification for the letters ‘ pre-trial identification status. He explained that the confusion between Thom Browne’s lawyers and their e-discovery contractor was not bad belief or purposeful wrongdoing. A debate over how to research for, and define, emails as sharable or wealthy caused a mix-up. The judge cited a number of factors that prevented the jury from granting a fresh test.