Peloton is fighting for the terms “spin” and “spinning” to be treated as generic terms, arguing that they have come into common use, despite being registered trademarks since the late 90s, Bloomberg reports. This week, she filed a petition with the US Patent and Trademark Office for Patent and Trademark Office to try to cancel the two trademarks owned by Mad Dogg Athletics, arguing that “spin class and spin bike are part of the lexicon of the fitness “and that are” generic terms to describe a type of exercise bike and associated classes in the studio. “
Mad Dogg has previously filed a lawsuit against Peloton, claiming that its products infringe its stationary bicycle patents. Although the process does not make claims on trademarks, Bloomberg characterizes Peloton’s attempt to cancel Mad Dogg’s trademarks as a “retaliation effort”. Mad Dogg has challenged Peloton’s use of the term “spin” in the past, and last year asked him to remove a video from his YouTube channel that referred to the phrase.
There are several examples of product names that started out as trademarks, but that eventually came into common use as product categories and lost their legal protections. Bloomberg notes that “escalator” and “built-in bed” are two important examples of the so-called “generic”. But, understandably, companies with registered trademarks want to retain the exclusive right to use and profit from them, and often do everything to prevent terms like “Band-Aid” or “Xerox” from becoming generic.
Mad Dogg Athletics dedicates a page on its website to how the terms should be used. “These brands are brand names that serve to identify the unique fitness products and programs offered by Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc,” says the company, noting that they are “important business assets” that must be treated with “care and respect. ”.
Mad Dogg’s website argues that consumers would be harmed along with the company if the terms became generic. “The loss of a trademark,” he says, “denies consumers the opportunity to identify an original and quality product developed with years of experience to repeat satisfactory purchases”
Peleton, unsurprisingly, disagrees. In his lawsuit, he says that Mad Dogg “spent years engaged in a campaign to intimidate demand letters and litigation to force people and companies to stop using the very terms they have every right to use”.
“It is enough. It is time to end Mad Dogg’s tactic of profiting by threatening competitors, markets and even journalists with the application of generic brands,” argues the Peloton process.