Indoor fitness brand Peloton is being sued for patent infringement, by Mad Dogg Athletics – the creators of Spinning.
The lawsuit alleges that the Peloton Bike, and Peloton Bike+ infringe two patents “directed to core features of an exercise bike designed to bring the experience of an instructor-led class into the rider’s home,” according to Businesswire.com.
Mad Dogg Athletics has filed for a trial in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the patents are US numbers 9,694,240 and 10,137,328.
“Peloton cannot compete in the category that Mad Dogg created by trampling on Mad Dogg’s rights,” said John Baudhuin, co-founder and CEO of Mad Dogg Athletics.
“We revolutionized the indoor cycling category in 2008 with the eSpinner® bike which featured the world’s first touch-screen display designed to bring instructor-led coaching and power training straight to the rider’s home. Peloton has built its business by freeriding on Mad Dogg’s patent-protected innovations,” he commented.
Mad Dogg Athletics was founded in 1994, by John Baudhuin and Johnny Goldberg – to develop the Spinning indoor cycling programme. They later built their first ‘Spinner’ bike.
Coming into the digital age, Spinning began to manufacture connected home Spinner bikes, linking the rider with a coach who could provide session plans and motivation – via the Spinning Digital and Spinning Digital+ platforms, which can be accessed via phone, tablet or smart TV.
As well as Spinning, Mad Dogg Athletics owns Peak Pilates, CrossCore, Ugi, Resist-A-Ball, Spin Fitness and SPINPower.
Peloton has been involved in legal battles with other exercise bike brands, NordicTrack (made by Icon Health and Fitness) and Echelon.
Back in 2018, Peloton racked up column inches, having sent a cease and desist letter to YouTuber Shane Miller for his use of the word ‘peloton’.
The letter stated “we understand that you may not have selected this title with any intention of infringing upon Peloton’s rights… However, as you may know, a trademark owner is required to police unauthorized uses of its mark in order to safeguard its rights.”