Mad Dogg Athletics, the company behind the indoor cycling Spin and Spinning brand lines, has issued a release that rebuffs a trademark cancellation petition filed by Peloton.
The company’s statement is in ‘response to media and other inquiries related to the trademark cancellation petition filed last week by Peloton Interactive.’
The statement from the company noted…
‘Mad Dogg Athletics is confident that Peloton’s legal action will fail. It appears to be little more than retaliation for Mad Dogg Athletics’ patent infringement lawsuit filed against Peloton in December 2020 seeking relief for Peloton’s misuse of Mad Dogg Athletics’ patented technology.
‘Peloton’s petition incorrectly paints a picture of Mad Dogg Athletics trying to assert rights that are not well established or grounded in trademark law. The opposite is true. It is a matter of public record that Mad Dogg Athletics has been continuously using, licensing, and enforcing rights in its SPIN and SPINNING marks for over 25 years, marks closely associated with Mad Dogg Athletics and properly protected by incontestable federal trademark registrations.
‘Mad Dogg Athletics conceived of the famous SPIN and SPINNING marks in the early 1990s. The company holds numerous Spin and Spinning trademark registrations that have become incontestable under federal trademark law.
‘The company has continuously used and defended its marks ever since in connection with indoor cycling bikes and programs that spawned the indoor cycling category. In addition to its comprehensive line of bikes (www.spinning.com), Mad Dogg Athletics has trained hundreds of thousands of Spinning instructors that lead classes at many of the world’s finest studios and gyms.’
‘After creating the indoor cycling category and its line of Spinning indoor cycling bikes and programs, Mad Dogg Athletics again revolutionized the indoor cycling category in 2010 with the introduction of the eSpinner bike, which featured the world’s first touch-screen display designed to bring instructor-led coaching and interactive training to gyms as well as riders’ homes.
‘Weeks before Peloton filed its trademark invalidity petition, Mad Dogg Athletics filed a federal lawsuit against Peloton for patent infringement. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleges that Peloton’s Bike and Bike+ infringe patents held by Mad Dogg Athletics (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,694,240 and 10,137,328) covering core features of an indoor cycling bike designed to simulate an instructor-led class in the rider’s home.’
Mad Dogg Athletics adds that it has continuously invested in and defended the Spinning family of trademarks worldwide as a means of distinguishing its bikes, programs, and accessories from those of its competitors, including Peloton.
