Hybrid Athletics Sues Hylete for Trademark Infringement
Hybrid Athletics has sued rival Hylete, claiming fitness brand is using confusingly similar marks on its products despite an order to stop from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
October 23, 2017 at 04:49 PM
4 minute read
A prominent fitness company is accusing a competitor of trademark infringement for allegedly marketing similarly branded products despite being ordered to stop by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
In its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport Monday, Hybrid Athletics claims Hylete LLC is making money off its similar mark and name. Stamford-based Hybrid Athletics, which registered several of the trademarks in question in 2008, claims California-based Hylete has used the marks extensively since at least April 2012.
TTAB ruled in Hybrid's favor in December 2016, according to the lawsuit. Hylete asked the board to reconsider, but it denied that request on March 16. Despite that order, Hylete continues to advertise and market athletic apparel, including shirts, polos, tank tops and headwear, with similar markings, according to the lawsuit.
In addition, “Hylete is a combination of the words hybrid and athlete, which are the same words, or confusingly similar to, as those of Hybrid,” according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit also claims the current owners of Hylete are intimately familiar with the Hybrid mark. Before the formation of Hylete, Hybrid worked with now-shuttered mixed martial arts clothing manufacturer JACO, which produced shorts for Hybrid using its mark. JACO was owned by Ron Wilson, who now owns Hylete.
The lawsuit claims ”JACO saved the Hybrid marks on its computer system.”
The lawsuit includes claims of trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition and unfair competition under various state and federal laws. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and punitive damages.
Michael Cosma of Whitmyer IP Group in Stamford represents Hybrid. He did not respond to a request for comment.
Also, no one from Hylete's Solana Beach, California, headquarters responded to a request for comment Monday.
The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge Victor Bolden.
A prominent fitness company is accusing a competitor of trademark infringement for allegedly marketing similarly branded products despite being ordered to stop by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
In its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport Monday, Hybrid Athletics claims Hylete LLC is making money off its similar mark and name. Stamford-based Hybrid Athletics, which registered several of the trademarks in question in 2008, claims California-based Hylete has used the marks extensively since at least April 2012.
TTAB ruled in Hybrid's favor in December 2016, according to the lawsuit. Hylete asked the board to reconsider, but it denied that request on March 16. Despite that order, Hylete continues to advertise and market athletic apparel, including shirts, polos, tank tops and headwear, with similar markings, according to the lawsuit.
In addition, “Hylete is a combination of the words hybrid and athlete, which are the same words, or confusingly similar to, as those of Hybrid,” according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit also claims the current owners of Hylete are intimately familiar with the Hybrid mark. Before the formation of Hylete, Hybrid worked with now-shuttered mixed martial arts clothing manufacturer JACO, which produced shorts for Hybrid using its mark. JACO was owned by Ron Wilson, who now owns Hylete.
The lawsuit claims ”JACO saved the Hybrid marks on its computer system.”
The lawsuit includes claims of trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition and unfair competition under various state and federal laws. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and punitive damages.
Michael Cosma of Whitmyer IP Group in Stamford represents Hybrid. He did not respond to a request for comment.
Also, no one from Hylete's Solana Beach, California, headquarters responded to a request for comment Monday.
The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge Victor Bolden.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Judge Splits Couple's Potential Recoupment of Punitive Damages Against eBay's Harassment Campaign
4 minute read
Vince McMahon's Accuser Pursues Records Amid Sexual Assault, Trafficking Claims
4 minute read
'Severe Emotional Distress': DC Judge Finds Iran Liable in 3 US Hostage-Takings
2 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
