IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—9th Cir.: Summary judgment affirmed in favor of Peloton in reverse confusion case, (Jul 28, 2025)

By Linda Panszczyk, J.D.

Even though some factors favored WCT's Bike+ mark, the rest overwhelmingly favored Peleton Bike+ in a reverse confusion case.

In a reverse confusion case alleging that Peloton Bike+ infringed the plaintiff's ‘Bike+’ mark for biking app, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the ruling of a federal district court in California granting summary judgment in favor of Peloton, Inc. Most of the likelihood of confusion factors overwhelmingly favored Peloton, including the third factor, which turns on the similarity of the marks as they are encountered in the marketplace, the sixth factor, which asks whether a reasonably prudent consumer would take the time to distinguish between the two product lines, and the fourth factor, actual confusion. According to the Ninth Circuit, these factors, taken together, made it such that no reasonable trier of fact could find that confusion is probable, so WCT’s claims failed as a matter of law (World Champ Tech, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., No. 24-2266 (9th Cir. July 25, 2025)).

Background. Plaintiff-Appellant World Champ Tech, LLC (“WCT”) has a trademark registration for “BIKE+” and has produced a mobile app called “Bike+” since 2014. In September 2020, Defendant-Appellee Peloton Interactive, Inc. (Peloton) released a new version of its home exercise bike called the “Peloton Bike+.” WCT sued for trademark infringement, claiming that Peloton’s use of the mark Peloton Bike+ is likely to cause confusion among consumers as to whether Peloton produces or sponsors WCT’s Bike+ app. The district court granted summary judgment to Peloton and WCT appealed.

Factors overwhelmingly favored Peloton. In a reverse confusion case like this one, the question "is whether consumers doing business with the senior user might mistakenly believe that they are dealing with the junior user.” The analysis is guided by eight factors.

According to the court, even when certain of the eight factors weigh in the plaintiff’s favor, summary judgment is appropriate if those factors are “overwhelmingly offset” by the remaining factors such that “no reasonable trier of fact could find that confusion is probable," which is the case here. The first two factors—mark strength and proximity of goods—weighed in WCT’s favor. For the first factor, regardless of whether WCT’s Bike+ mark is descriptive or suggestive, a jury could find that Peloton’s Peloton Bike+ mark is so commercially strong that it could overtake WCT’s mark. As to the second factor, a jury could find that the parties’ products are intended for the “same class” of consumers—those who bike as a form of exercise—and are “similar in use and function”—offering users the ability to track metrics while biking.

However, said the court, the other factors overwhelmingly favor Peloton, particularly the third factor, which turns on the similarity of the marks as they are encountered in the marketplace. Because WCT ceased paid advertising in 2019, consumers who encounter WCT’s mark primarily do so in the Apple App Store. There, Peloton’s app may appear alongside WCT’s app in search results, but the two apps bear no similarity in appearance, especially because the Peloton app does not use the term “Bike+.” Further, although the use of house marks “can aggravate reverse confusion” in some cases, this is not one of them. The mark similarity factor therefore favors Peloton.

The sixth factor, which asks whether a reasonably prudent consumer would take the time to distinguish between the two product lines, similarly favored Peloton. When WCT applied for its trademark registration, it represented to the United States Patent and Trademark Office that its app “is not acquired through impulse or ‘rash’ action”; instead, consumers must complete the multi-step process of searching the Apple App Store, selecting the app they are looking for among competitor apps, and then entering a passcode or alternative method of authentication to confirm that they intend to download the app. Again, during this process, the Apple App Store displays “World Champ Tech” as the producer of the Bike+ app. Accordingly, a reasonably prudent consumer would identify the Bike+ app as being produced by WCT, not Peloton.

Importantly, the fourth factor, actual confusion, also favored Peloton, said the Ninth Circuit. While WCT has offered an expert survey finding a net confusion rate of 12 percent, courts generally treat rates below 10 percent as evidence “that confusion is not likely,” Here, the other evidence points in the opposite direction. The products have coexisted in the marketplace for years, and hundreds of consumers have downloaded WCT’s Bike+ app during that time. Yet WCT has no evidence that any of them has experienced any confusion.

Viewed collectively, according to the Ninth Circuit, these factors make it such that no reasonable trier of fact could find that confusion is probable, so WCT’s claims fail as a matter of law. The district court decision granting summary judgment in favor of Peloton was affirmed.

The Case is No. 24-2266.

Judge: Beeler, L.

Attorneys: Ryan Bricker (Verso Law Group, LLP) for World Champ Tech, LLC. Amy Heath (Covington & Burling, LLP) for Peloton Interactive, Inc.

Companies: World Champ Tech, LLC; Peloton Interactive, Inc.

Cases: Trademark AlaskaNews ArizonaNews CaliforniaNews HawaiiNews IdahoNews MontanaNews NevadaNews OregonNews WashingtonNews GCNNews