Peloton Flexes IP Muscles by Filing 3 Trademark Oppositions

On Wednesday, Peloton Interactive Inc. filed three notices of opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board regarding applicant Haijuan Zhang’s application for the Pelolion, Pelodio, and Pelooxi marks in International Class 25, claiming that it will be harmed because of the likelihood of consumer confusion.

According to the oppositions, Peloton “offers and sells innovative fitness equipment, clothing, streaming instructional content and an interactive community experience under the PELOTON mark … to bring studio-style workouts to its members at home” and the Peloton mobile app, “which allows users to stream fitness classes and purchase PELOTON products.” Peloton asserted that its Peloton mark has garnered widespread consumer recognition and goodwill.

Peloton added that its various registrations for the Peloton mark cover products such as silicone wristbands, sports bags, sports apparel such as shirts, leggings, tank tops, T-shirts, shoes, hats, bandanas, and pullovers, as well as fitness equipment and classes, jewelry, decals, online social networking services, “software for monitoring and analyzing various parameters associated with the operation of a bicycle or exercise cycle and for fitness training,” among other things. Peloton claimed that it has the exclusive right to use the Peloton mark in connection with the identified goods and services.

Peloton noted that the applicant filed to register the Pelolion, Pelodio, and Pelooxi marks in connection with apparel, including coats, jumpers, shoes, swimwear, T-shirts, sports jerseys, and sports shoes, among other products identified in the oppositions.

Peloton asserted that the applicant “is not associated with Opposer i(n) any way and has not been authorized by Opposer to use Applicant’s Mark.” Peloton proffered that its rights in its Peloton mark predate those of the applicant for the applicant’s marks.

Moreover, Peloton averred that the applicant’s marks are “highly similar to Opposer’s PELOTON Mark in sight, sound, and commercial impression.” Peloton added that the “goods identified in the Application(s) are overlapping with and closely related to the goods and services offered by Opposer under the PELOTON Mark.” According to Peloton, the similarity of the marks and offered goods and services is likely to cause consumer confusion, mistake, or deception. As a result, “consumers are likely to be deceived into falsely believing that the goods offered by Applicant under Applicant’s Mark originate from or are otherwise associated with or endorsed by Opposer” or that there is some other connection between Peloton and its mark and the applicant and its marks.

Peloton requests that its oppositions are sustained and the applicant’s application registrations are denied.

Peloton is represented by Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu P.C.