Peloton is trying to get the "spinning" trademark canceled

midian182

Posts: 6,564   +58
Staff member
In context: You might think that “spinning” and “spin,” used to describe stationary bike-based aerobic classes led by an instructor, are generic terms that anyone can use, but they’re not. Both words have been trademarked since the late 90s, and exercise giant Peloton wants this to change.

Peloton is well known for its online spinning classes and related equipment, which have seen their popularity surge during the pandemic as gyms close and people opt for at-home fitness regimes. But the company can’t actually use the terms “spinning” or “spin” as they are copyrighted by California firm Mad Dogg.

Now, Bloomberg reports that Peloton has filed petitions to cancel the trademarks, arguing that spinning and spin are “part of the fitness lexicon” and “generic terms to describe a type of exercise bike and associated in-studio class.”

Mad Dogg previously told Peloton to remove a video from its YouTube channel that referenced the word “spin,” writes The Verge.

Peloton’s filing with the Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board notes that Mad Dogg has threatened litigation for trademark infringement against “countless fitness industry participants.”

“Even five minutes of simple Google searching reveal that everyone in the world -- other than Mad Dogg -- understands that ‘spin’ and ‘spinning’ are generic terms to describe a type of exercise bike and associated in-studio class,” reads Peloton’s petition.

Bloomberg notes that “escalator” and “murphy beds” started out as trademarks but lost their protection from overuse, known as “genericide.” In contrast, some trademarks that turn into verbs, such as Google and Zoom, remain associated with the companies that own them.

Mad Dogg has an entire page on its website dedicated to how the terms should be used, noting that only authorized dealers can use them.

Peloton is already facing an infringement lawsuit from Mad Dogg over patents for programmed exercise bikes. While that suit is unrelated to the spinning/spin trademarks, Bloomberg believes Peloton’s actions are a “retaliatory effort.”

Permalink to story.

 

kiwigraeme

Posts: 261   +227
I bought my aunt an exercise bike for $200 from Costco and she set it in front of her 50" TV. I see no reason to pay Peloton prices when there are FREE Youtube classes.
Did you buy her the 50 inch TV as well - remember you buying your folks one ( could be wrong ) . Anyway thanks for letting us know it's size - size matters - I'll be upgrading my Panny Plasma this year to the latest and greatest Panasonic JZ2000 in it's first sale.

Whoops sorry - it will be 65 inch ( size matters - if you've got it...... ) - I would need to go to LG or Sony to go bigger
 

barca1au

Posts: 10   +3
Was it patented before the term "going for a spin" was in common use? The term refers to the use of a set of wheels to go out on, generally for enjoyment, and either 2 or 4, and has been in use for about 100 years. Before that it was used by hand-spinners using spinning wheels to create yarn. Patenting or trademarking common terms or phrases should not be allowed!
 

Fox God Records

Posts: 53   +37
Remember when Paris Hilton tried to trademark "That's Hot"? She was denied. How the hell did one Euroduo end up registering such generic terms as "SPIN®, SPINNER®, and SPINNING®" as singular words? That's insane. It's like Denny's registering GRILLED CHEESE or Ford registering HATCHBACK or White Castle registering SLIDER. (Confession, I enjoy grilled cheese sandwiches, I own a Ford hatchback, and I used to eat many White Castle burgers.)

I am NO fan of Peloton. Not by a longshot. But these two yobbos - John B. and Johnny G - should have NEVER been issued the registered marks for these single words.