'Spinning' Trademarked; Gyms Being Threatened For Holding Spinning Classes Sans License
from the ride-that-bike dept
If you've been to a gym lately, you've probably seen how "spinning" classes have become quite popular these days. When I first heard of them, I couldn't figure out why they called them "spinning," rather than just "stationary bike" classes, but now I know: apparently "spinning" is a trademarked term, held by a company called Mad Dogg Athletics, and the company is gaining a reputation for trying to enforce that trademark around the globe. If you look at the USPTO, the company appears to have a ton of different trademarks on "spinning," covering not just exercise classes, but also sports drinks, lotions and creams, nutritional supplements and computer software. It looks like the original spinning trademark was filed for back in 1992 -- so it's entirely possible that this company really did come up with the term and popularize it.However, it seems that many people now feel that the term really has become generic, and I'd have to agree. I've known about "spinning classes" for ages, but never had any idea it was associated with any particular company -- until now. And that's only because an anonymous reader sent in this story of how Mad Dogg has had lawyers threatening gyms in Denmark (Google translation of the original Danish). The Danish gyms seem pretty upset by this, arguing that "spinning" has become a common generic word, and no one associates it with Mad Dogg at all. It also appears that nearly all of the gyms contacted have simply decided to call their stationary bike classes something else, rather than give in and pay a licensing fee just to call a spinning class a spinning class.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: denmark, gyms, spinning, stationary bicycle, trademark
Companies: mad dogg athletics
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The original spinning classes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Serioulsy....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I've never once heard spinning used as a brand or trademark, only as the name of an activity. Like lifting, or walking. Or breathing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They got the trademark as far back as 1992, but it appears took them 18+ years to really get around to enforcing it. Sadly for them, they look to have little protection because they didn't enforce the trademark as they should have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Please help my tiny brain
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That should be used to describe learning to spin in dance (e.g. ballet) without getting dizzy. Few people actually need a class to learn how to peddle. It should be called "stationary bike sessions".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Anybody who wishes to continue breathing will have to pay me licensing fees.
; P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Funny, that's what I thought too. Although I have to say, I belond to a Bally's and go 5-6 days a week and I've NEVER heard of a spinning class....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Please help my tiny brain
And no, they do not apply to other countries. The article doesn't say if the trademark was granted in Denamrk also.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The original spinning classes
That part just after putting on the blindfold and just before pinning the tail - I believe they call that a trademark violation.
There was a similar move with the piñata later that day, but I don't think you file lawsuits against someone blindly swinging a stick.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This is like the people that release free music on the internet to get their name out and then complain once they have some popularity that pirates are stealing their art. If nobody else could have used the term "spinning" for the past 18 years, it is pretty likely we would be calling it a stationary bike class and if someone said "spinning" we would conjure up images of someone making yarn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
No blame here...just pointing it out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So what's the problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Given some of the stunning women that work out at my Ballys, I have no doubt that your explanation is precisely correct....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The problem here is that they don't seem to have tried to enforce there trademark for 18 years so the term spinning has become a generic term with no real trademark value.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Welcome to the free market. Innovate or get out of the way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They should crowdsource info gathering on patents and trademarks up for approval.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just applied for a trademark...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just applied for a trademark...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spinning IS a generic term
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The original spinning classes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: term 'spinning'
back in the day -when eddie mercx was the reigning hero- i pretended to be into road racing for a while, and 'spinning' was a common term used for the technique of maintaining a constant cadence... the idea was to use the gearing to maintain -more or less- the same high pace/foot RPM, regardless of the topography... (obviously, at extreme grades, there was less 'spinning' and more 'humping'...)
in short, i heard/read of 'spinning' in context with road bikes as the technique to use in pedaling, decades before there were 'spinning' classes in gyms...
this whole idea of trademarks trumping society is so specious...
art guerrilla (tm)
aka ann archy (tm)
artguerrilla@windstream.net (tm)
eof (tm)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Please help my tiny brain
This is about trademarks, not patents, and yes, US trademark only covers the US, but I would assume they applied for international trademarks as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You mean trademark, and you're too late. Mad Dogg has also trademarked "SPIN"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Hmm.. We all know how to sell things. Pedaling a stationary bicycle is another story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That seems like a bit of a stretch. "Training for cyclists" is still fitness. Does the fact that one group is exercising for a different purpose than the other really make it two entirely separate things that could be separately trademarked?
Seems like in that case trademark would be causing customer confusion, not preventing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spinning
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Spinning
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
spinning
What is a trademark or service mark?
In short, a trademark is a brand name. A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. A service mark is any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce, to identify and distinguish the services of one provider from services provided by others, and to indicate the source of the services.
Must all marks be registered?
No, but federal registration has several advantages, including a notice to the public of the registrant's claim of ownership of the mark, a legal presumption of ownership nationwide, and the exclusive right to use the mark on or in connection with the goods or services set forth in the registration.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spinning Rocks....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Spinning
But at the same time, it seems like the argument that the trademark has now become generic is quite valid as well. The fact that protecting their mark was difficult does not excuse the fact that they failed to protect it: it has now become a pretty generic term. It is difficult to protect any popular brand, and yet you don't see hundreds of competitors offering "Apple" computers do you? So clearly Mad Dogg didn't protect it as well as they could have.
I totally understand their desire to continue defending it, but I think that if one of these gyms were to take this to court and argue that the mark has become generic, they would have a very good chance of winning at this point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Spinning
While I do think the mark could be invalidated as generic now, originally it seems like a pretty good use of trademark law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Spinning Rocks....
I don't know what sort of legal muscle you are able to muster, but if you get trademark threats consider fighting them and getting this mark declared officially generic!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems fair actually - that's what our Axe Deodorant is supposed to do to them, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spinning
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Please help my tiny brain
What about the whole thing about "Katy Perry" (sic?) fashion store in Australia having a trademark case brought against them when they applied for the mark by Katie Perry the singer, as I recall without her having a trademark registration in Australia?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spinning
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Spinning
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I never inhaled.
Can I please be President now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
prior art..?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: prior art..?
A trademark is not claiming "invent" a word. And this trademark was not on all "apparatus that utilized wheels and pedals" but on their very specific line of exercise bikes, the associated workout plans, and several tertiary products. They believe their equipment and approach to be the best (I cannot speak to this point, but it is their unique manufacture, good or bad) and so they wish to distinguish it in the marketplace with a unique name. So they chose a word which, yes, has some associations to bicycles, but which was by no means a common term used to refer to them (much less exercise bikes), and made it their brand.
This is exactly what trademarks are for, and they benefit both the company and the consumer: if someone tries several exercise bike classes and discovers that they like Spinning the best (or the least), then they can confidently do it again (or avoid it) in the future by looking for its unique trademark. When they see "Spinning", they know its going to be the same as or similar to the class they took before. The company is rewarded with a good reputation if they provide quality a quality service/product, and the consumer is able to make a more informed choice.
This is good. Trademarks, all in all, are the most balanced field of intellectual property - except when people start trying to extend their reach.
But that's not even what Mad Dogg is doing here. They are exercising their trademark in exactly the right way, and that's their right. The only real issue here is whether or not the trademark has become a generic term, which under the law invalidates it. Some examples include Aspirin, Zipper, Thermos and Kerosene - all of which were originally trademark names but were deemed generic once they entered common usage to such a degree that people commonly referred to all similar products by the same name.
So the question here is whether or not that's what happened to "Spinning". It certainly seems possible since many people (including myself) had no idea it was a brand name. Ultimately this may be tested in court, however given the low stakes, it's likely that nobody will fight it and the gyms that get threatened will simply change the name as they have been doing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The original spinning classes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't even try to sell a "spinning" bike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Going too far
Won't be buying anything from that company, that's for sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Latest Development
Despite swarms of Mad Dog Athletics lawyers they managed to
- get "Aerospinning" trademark registered with WIPO (MDA fights back in an effort to remove it)
- challenge the "SPINNING" at court due to being generic ( http://esearch.oami.europa.eu/copla/trademark/data/000175117 - cancellation pending)
- Czech Trademark Office issued cancellation of SPINNING trademark for Czech Republic (MDA is currently having a grace time for an appeal)
So if you thing that this tiny company is right show them your love: http://facebook.com/gofitness.cz (MDA issued take down notice for http://facebook.com/aerospinning so they are using the main gym's FB page)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Latest Development (Updated) - SPINNING trademar is dead
I think that this puts an end to all those discussions and doubts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No one has told eBay
[ link to this | view in thread ]