World Champ Tech LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

Background

World Champ Tech LLC offers a mobile-fitness app called “Bike+” and owns a trademark registration for that name. It sued Peloton Interactive, Inc. for trademark infringement and other claims after Peloton launched interactive stationary bicycles under the name “Peloton Bike+.” The court previously granted Peloton’s motion for summary judgment, ruling as a matter of law that there was no likelihood of confusion, and entered judgment.

World Champ Tech then moved for reconsideration of the final judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available for newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. The issue presented here was whether the earlier decision contained clear error.

Arguments and analysis

World Champ Tech principally challenged the earlier conclusion that “Bike+” was descriptive as a matter of law. It argued that “Bike+” could refer to different things, such as an app for motorcycle-performance data or a video game, rather than an app for enhancing biking. It also argued that the plus sign could refer to addition, computer language, positivity, or alternatives to bikes.

The court acknowledged that the exact description of the mark’s meaning could be debated, but held that the mark was still descriptive. At minimum, the court said, “Bike+” conveyed adding something to a bike or biking. Applied to an app, that was the conventional meaning of the combined term and reflected the actual purpose of World Champ Tech’s app. The court said the mark described an aspect of the product directly and without requiring imagination.

The court also addressed the rule that, for a registered mark, the defendant must show that consumers regard the mark as merely descriptive of the product. Although dictionary definitions alone are not determinative, the court found additional record evidence supporting its conclusion, including the use of plus signs next to other words to convey additional quality. The court further stated that its earlier analysis of the parties’ arguments remained sufficient in the context of reverse confusion, a trademark theory involving a newer user’s mark allegedly overwhelming an earlier user’s mark.

Ruling

Judge Laurel Beeler denied World Champ Tech’s motion for reconsideration. The order states that the court’s descriptiveness holding was sound and that the motion was denied on that ground. The court then denied the motion again as to the remaining arguments and stated that the order disposed of the motion identified as ECF No. 222. The previously entered judgment remained in place.