What is obvious is that these are very contextual. So, (no law expert - get one involved) but unless you are running an indoor spinning class, then as @willball12 suggests…
…they seem to have trademarked ‘Peloton Digital membership’ which is where the use of ‘Digital Peloton’ may have riled them. IMHO they don’t have a leg to stand on as the context is very different and peloton is also a generic term in cycling.
You have my full support. More power to your elbow and legs. …and remember the latin phrase “Nil illigitimus carborundum” (Translates as “Don’t let the *********s gring you down”.) We are all rooting for you.
You do a great service to the cycling community with your reviews and videos. I also love that you collaborate with DCR, and others.
I would consider reaching out to a copyright lawyer in the US if this goes any further. Keep in the mind that you have the potential to recover your attorney’s fees in the event they take you to court (in the US) and you win…so don’t automatically feel like you need to roll over and just take it.
This is not my area of expertise, but my (very uneducated) guess is that Peloton’s attorneys probably know that they don’t have a super strong claim here, but they’re erring on the side of caution by sending the letter. As mentioned in the letter, they have to defend their trademark against infringement or they can lose it. I’m not sure if they’d want to risk taking this court and put bad case law out there for them.
More so a win for everyone else using the term ‘peloton’ than me in this case. Hopefully this means Dodgy and Co Lawyers won’t go after anyone else without doing their homework in the first place. This wasn’t my company name, I wasn’t trading with it, I wasn’t making bank on it. It was a single word in a video title. My reply to their lawyers was less than professional, it was factual though.
Thanks again to everyone following along. My cadence hasn’t changed. I’m here to help people out, sharing how cool (and not cool) some of this new bike tech is. See my latest upload from the Tacx factory. It has robots. Building smart trainers. That’s amazingly cool.
Right. It’s new bike day. No time to waste… I have to go rip mad skids!
@GPLama So they threaten you, for their mis-understanding of how you were using the word peleton, and then decide it is clear you are not using it in conection with fitness equipment, which was obvious from the start. With the simplest of research they could have worked that out for themselves.
They have put you under clear stress. … and all they do is thank you for your clarification. Ummmm…
An apology should/would be an absolute minimum. Perhaps more should be in order…
Though no doubt you will put this behind you.
I am amused to think that the lawyers have likely done their client more reputational damage, amongst the cycling community, than any damage caused by someone using and confusing Peleton.
Lawyers trying to justify their value who have no understanding of cyclists or customers. The only tool they have is a hammer, so every problem is a nail.
(No offense meant to Laywers in general, just these ones )
4B is the company valuation, which is including speculation on the companies future growth. While they have managed to make people think stationary bikes are cool and sell more than most, they haven’t sold anywhere near 4B. At 2k a pop, that would be 2M bikes.
That makes a lot of sense. It seems like there is a finite market for 2000 dollar stationery bikes, but as I’m not the target customer, what do I know. I’d be curious where they see themselves going in the future. I’d guess some sort of service situation, like mobile phones, where the hardware is just the beginning…
A $4billion valuation of a company doesn’t mean they make that much in sales. They seem to be expanding into an online subscription model for ‘virtual spin sessions’ and I can see that market being much larger than the $2k stationary bikes alone.
Some trademarks are legit, but some are ridiculous and easy to demolish in court. That’s why most startups register trademarks that aren’t in the dictionary. Some prefer to generate a meaningless neologism to avoid risk that their trademark can be invalidated.
Many companies (especially startups) hire an outside law firm to enforce their trademarks. Based on past experience with lawyers and how they bill, it probably costs the company well over $50,000 and dozens of annoyed people who aren’t violating to stop one violator. When the law firm kicks the wrong person or company, that person/company gets mad enough to force the case through court and get a weak trademark invalidated.
Most startups, especially startups seeking engaged customer bases, would be better off letting their customers bring violations to their attention, check it out themselves, maybe write a nice letter to the person/company if they’re concerned, then decide if they need a lawyer.
)