Major Brands Intensify Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights

Recent intellectual property (IP) disputes involving big-name brands such as Adidas, Swatch Group and Samsung highlight the growing challenges established brands face in protecting their IP in an increasingly competitive digital marketplace.

In this article we look at recent cases which consider the legal complexities of establishing ownership and proving trademark infringement in the ever-growing e-commerce world.

Adidas v White Fox

Sportswear giant, Adidas, has initiated legal proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Australian fast-fashion retailer, White Fox. Adidas alleges trademark infringement arising from White Fox’s sale and promotion of clothing featuring four parallel stripes. Adidas contends that White Fox’s designs are ‘deceptively similar’ to Adidas’ well established three-stripe trademark, which it has used in Australia for more than 65 years, and asserts White Fox are seeking to capitalise on its established reputation.

Adidas also identified White Fox promotional material in which White Fox branded socks are modelled alongside genuine Adidas shoes, claiming that White Fox have taken advantage of their established reputation. Adidas are seeking damages and a surrender of profits from the disputed items, as well as a court order to halt production of the offending items.

White Fox denies all allegations of trademark infringement and argues that its four stripes are purely decorative rather than a brand logo.

Adidas has previously vigorously defended its three-stripe trademark across the globe with varying success recently losing its trademark infringement cases against luxury brand Thom Browne in the US, UK, and Germany. The outcome of this case (expected late 2027) may be significant in a world of fast fashion and prolific imitation.

Swatch Group v Samsung

In August 2026, the High Court in London handed down its quantum judgment in the trade mark dispute between the Swatch Group and Samsung, awarding the Swatch Group approximately $11.6 million in damages.

Liability in this case was determined in 2022 (and a later appeal brought by Samsung was unsuccessful) when the High Court found that a number of the Swatch Group's trade marks had been infringed by watch face apps available on the SGA store between October 2015 and February 2019. The applications enabled users to replicate the appearance of watch faces associated with Swatch Group brands, including Omega, Longines, Tissot and Swatch.

The parties’ submissions on damages were vastly different with the Swatch Group seeking approximately $170 million in ‘negotiation’ damages (also known as licence fee, Wrotham Park or user damages), while Samsung argued that the award should be limited to only $301, reflecting the limited revenue generated by the infringing applications.

The Court rejected both valuations and awarded $11.6 million to Samsung, comprising $1.6 million for applications displaying protected marks on downloaded watch faces and $10 million for the use of those marks in app listings.

The latter was considered particularly significant, as the association of prestigious trademarks with free or low-cost applications risked undermining their brand positioning. The award was based on the hypothetical licence fee Samsung would reasonably have paid to use the protected marks lawfully.

The decision clarifies that negotiation damages must be proportionate to the rights exploited and reflect the hypothetical licence fee that the parties would reasonably have agree, assessed prospectively and without the benefit of hindsight. The Court also confirmed that a trademark owner’s unwillingness to license its marks does not preclude an award of negotiation damages.

Shein v Temu

Shein and Temu are two of the largest and well-known ultra-low-cost online shopping platforms. Shein primarily operates in ‘fast-fashion’, designing, manufacturing and selling its own branded apparel whereby Temu is an e-commerce marketplace which connects third-party manufacturers and sellers directly with consumers.

In August 2026 the court dismissed a claim brought by Shein against Temu whereby Shein claimed that Temu had commit acts of copyright infringement (or authorised such acts) in relation to product listing photographs uploaded to the Temu UK website by third party merchants. The claim related to Shein’s suppliers clearing unsold stock through other sites, including Temu. Until Shein intervened to put a stop to the practice, suppliers listing these products on the Temu website used the same photographs that had been used on the Shein website.

The Court found that Shein had failed to establish copyright ownership in certain photographs due to deficiencies in its chain of title and it was found that Temu had neither infringed nor authorised infringement of the relevant works. Temu’s counterclaim for damages arising from the removal of product listings pursuant to earlier court orders was upheld, with the quantum to be assessed separately at a later stage.

The case highlights that rightsholders wishing to take action against a platform will likely require evidence of the platform's active involvement in the infringing listings or demonstrate that the platform failed to act once put on notice to remove the images.

It is also important for rightsholders to be alive to the ‘chain of title’. Large-scale takedown campaigns require detailed evidence (including proof of their own ownership) to show that a platform had the requisite knowledge and to establish wrongdoing.

Key Takeaways

These cases above highlight the challenges of intellectual property enforcement in an increasingly digital market place. Businesses need to take steps to protect their intellectual property rights proactively and reinforce the importance of maintaining comprehensive ownership records and evidential support when enforcing intellectual property rights.

If you would like any further information or advice on the information mentioned within this article, please contact Helen Cosgrove or another member from the Intellectual Property Team.

*This information is for guidance purposes only and does not constitute, nor should be regarded as, a substitute for taking legal advice that is tailored to your circumstances.