California company Redefining Strength accuses Medford’s Redefine Strength and Fitness of trademark infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act. Redefining Strength says that it has been providing in-person and virtual fitness training under the REDEFINING STRENGTH mark since 2013, and that it obtained a federal registration on the mark in February 2021. Redefining Strength points to its 600,000 YouTube subscribers and over twenty million website visitors as evidence of its consumer recognition and goodwill. It has 475 Massachusetts customers, and about 2500 in New England. It says that Redefine Strength and Fitness opened in 2019, and provides both in-person and virtual strength and fitness training. Redefining Strength suggests that the two marks are sufficiently similar, given the similarity of the businesses and advertising methods, to result in customer confusion. Redefining Strength suggests that the use of “Fitness” by the defendant does not distinguish its name, because the word “merely describes a characteristics [sic[ or quality of the services, and is also a generic term for the services” offered by the defendant, an assertion that would seem to put the registerability of its own mark into question. Redefining Strength further suggests that the defendant has used “redefining strength” in its YouTube keywords and has Redefining Strength’s videos on its YouTube playlist, evidencing an intent to cash in on Redefining Strength’s goodwill. I note that Redefining Strength’s mark was initially refused registration based on a preexisting “RedefineStrngth” registration for fitness services; it is unclear how these two marks could be distinguished while the accused mark cannot.
SHARE THIS POST