Peloton approaches USPTO for cancellation of Mad Dogg’s trademarks “Spin” and “Spinning”

Peloton and Big Dogg who are the two big brands of the fitness industry are standing against each other over the trademarks Spin and Spinning. Both these trademarks are owned by the Big Dogg and Peloton is fighting over the issue that both the terms “spin” and “spinning” should be treated as generic terms. Peloton argued that these terms have entered into common usage in spite of being trademarked since the late 90s. It recently filed petitions with the US Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board for trying and canceling both trademarks that are owned by Mad Dogg Athletics. Peloton argued for this point, “Spin class and spin bike are part of the fitness lexicon and that they’re generic terms to describe a type of exercise bike and associated in-studio class.”

Mad Dogg had earlier filed a lawsuit against Peloton where it accused Peloton of an infringing patent of Dogg’s exercise bike. Peloton’s attempt to cancel Mad Dogg’s trademarks is nothing but a retaliatory effort to Dogg’s patent infringement lawsuit that too when its lawsuit doesn’t make claims on trademarks. Mad Dogg has challenged the use of the term “spin” by Peloton in the past as well and last year also asked it to remove a video from its YouTube channel that referenced the phrase.

There are plentiful examples of product names that initially started out as trademarks, but eventually lost their legal protections as they entered common usage as product categories. Two high-profile examples of such categories are “Escalator” and “Murphy Bed”. But as per common logic and understanding, companies with such trademarks are keen to hold on to their exclusive right to use and profit off them. Many times some companies go to great lengths to avoid terms like “Band-Aid” or “Xerox” from becoming generic.

Mad Dogg Athletics devotes a detailed page on its website guiding people on how to use these terms. Dogg’s website states, “These marks are brand names that serve to identify the unique fitness products and programs offered by Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. They are important business assets that should be treated with care and respect.”

Mad Dogg’s website further argues that not only the company but its consumers as well would be harmed if these terms became generic. It says, “Loss of a trademark, denies consumers the opportunity to identify an original, quality product developed with years of experience for repeat satisfactory purchases.”

Unsurprisingly, Peloton disagrees with what has been stated if Mad Dogg’s website. In its filing, it says, “Mad Dogg has spent years engaged in a bullying campaign of demand letters and litigation to force people and companies to stop using the very terms they have every right to use. Enough is enough. It is time to put a stop to Mad Dogg’s tactic of profiting by threatening competitors, marketplaces, and even journalists with the enforcement of generic trademarks.”