IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—D. Mass.: Preliminary injunction granted to halt U.S. sales of an infringing wearable health tracker, (Feb 4, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

A preliminary injunction was warranted to immediately stop a Chinese manufacturer of smart watches and health monitoring wearable devices from selling its infringing wearable products in the United States while the litigation proceeds.

A Chinese manufacturer of smart watches and health monitoring wearable devices has been preliminarily enjoined by the federal district court in Massachusetts from selling its infringing wearable product in the United States while the litigation proceeds. The district court found that the plaintiff established a likelihood of success on the merits of its trade dress infringement claim and that continued sales of infringing wearable product were likely to cause consumer confusion and irreparable harm absent immediate relief (Whoop, Inc. v. Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., No. 1:25-cv-12690-FDS (D. Mass. Feb. 2, 2026)).

Background. Whoop, Inc. (Whoop), a U.S.-based technology company, produces the “WHOOP Wearable,” a device that allows consumers to track daily behaviors and metrics like sleep, strain, recovery, and more, to help users optimize their physical and mental performance. Although the device has since gone through several iterations, all versions have included the same “non-functional and distinctive trade dress,” consisting of “a continuous fabric band that wraps over the device (i.e., a faceless device) with thin metal accents on the sides of the device.” Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. (Shenzhen Lexqi) is a manufacturer of smart watches and health monitoring wearable devices with its offices in Shenzhen, China. In July 2025, Whoop became aware of several listings on Amazon.com selling what appeared to be knockoff versions of the WHOOP Wearable. Whoop sent a letter to Shenzhen Lexqi demanding that it cease and desist the sale and manufacture of its knockoff devices, which Whoop alleged infringed on its trade-dress rights. Shenzhen Lexqi’s attorney Jafarinejad sent a letter on the company’s behalf denying that its products infringed on any of Whoop’s intellectual-property rights.

Whoop then filed a trade-dress infringement suit in September 2025 alleging that Shenzhen Lexqi manufactures and sells a health-monitoring device that infringes on its intellectual-property rights. Whoop also moved for a preliminary injunction barring Shenzhen Lexqi from selling its allegedly infringing products while the case continues.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the party seeking the injunction must demonstrate: a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; a significant risk of irreparable harm if the injunction is withheld; a favorable balance of equities; and that the injunction is in the public interest.

Likelihood of success on the merits. To succeed in a trade-dress infringement action, a party must demonstrate both that its trade dress merits protection and that the allegedly infringing use is likely to result in consumer confusion.

To be protectable, Whoop must show that the WHOOP Trade Dress is “used in commerce,” “non-functional,” and “distinctive,” as each of those terms is used in trademark law. The district court noted that at this stage of litigation Whoop need not show conclusively that it will succeed in proving that the WHOOP Trade Dress is used in commerce, non-functional, and distinctive; it needed to only show that it will likely do so. The district court found that Whoop met the burden of proving that it is likely to show that its trade dress is used in commerce, is nonfunctional, and is distinctive. Therefore, Whoop is likely to show that its trade dress is eligible for protection under the Lanham Act.

Likelihood of confusion. To prevail on its trade-dress infringement claim, plaintiff must show that prospective buyers of the product in question are likely to be confused as to the product’s source. The district court noted that Whoop has used the WHOOP Trade Dress continuously for more than ten years, and the strength of Whoop’s mark favors it. Further, Shenzhen Lexqi’s allegedly infringing device was almost identical to Whoop’s device that embodies the WHOOP Trade Dress, and both parties offer their products for sale on Amazon.com, showing that they utilize the same channels of trade. Thus, the district court found that Whoop has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim, because it is likely to show both that the WHOOP Trade Dress is protectable and that Shenzhen Lexqi has infringed on that trade dress.

Irreparable harm. Shenzhen Lexqi argued that Whoop waited too long to bring suit, and that its delay undercuts any claim to irreparable harm. The district court noted that Shenzhen Lexqi claimed that its devices have been marketed and sold through Amazon only since January 2025; therefore, even if Whoop had learned about the potential infringement as soon as the sales began, it would have waited only seven months to send cease-and-desist letters and eight months to file suit. Therefore, Shenzhen Lexqi did not successfully rebut the presumption of irreparable harm.

Balance of equities. The district court noted that Whoop invested substantial time and resources over a decade into developing products that employed the WHOOP Trade Dress. Although Shenzhen Lexqi identified some harms that would flow from the issuance of a preliminary injunction, including the potential destruction of some of its inventory held by Amazon, the district court found that the demonstrated harms to Whoop, when considered along with Whoop’s strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, outweighed any such harms to Shenzhen Lexqi. Thus, the balance of equities favored Whoop.

Public interest. The district court held that the public interest favored protecting against further violation of federal trademark laws. Therefore, this factor favored Whoop.

Accordingly, the district court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-12690-FDS.

Judge: Saylor, F.

Attorneys: Joshua M. Dalton (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP) for Whoop, Inc. Jeffrey E. Schiller (Grogan, Tuccillo & Vanderleeden, LLP) for Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.

Companies: Whoop, Inc.; Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.

Cases: TradeSecrets TechnologyInternet GCNNews MassachusettsNews