IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—C.D. Cal.: Trial court denies fitness company’s motion for injunction due to a finding of naked licensing and a contract dispute, (Apr 29, 2026)

By Joe Cox, J.D.

A fitness company moved for injunction after the break-up of a 10-year relationship with a lessee, but the court denied the motion on the merits.

On Friday, a California district court denied the motion of a fitness company that has filed a trademark infringement claim and was seeking a preliminary injunction regarding the use of trademarks. The suit was filed by Lagree Fitness, Inc. and Lagree Technologies, Inc., (Lagree) against Studio Physique, LLC (Physique) and there is a contractual dispute between the parties as to the termination of a leasing/licensing agreement. In addition to a genuine dispute as to whether the licensing agreement has actually been terminated, an extended lack of control by Lagree led the court to also find that it had engaged in naked licensing and was not entitled to an injunction. (Lagree Fitness, Inc. v. Studio Physique, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-10834-ODW-MBK (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2026)).

History of the dispute. Lagree was founded in 2001 and developed a popular high-intensity, low-impact workout which is now called the Lagree Method. The method relies on a machine Lagree invented called the Proformer, which is similar to a Pilates reformer, but is specifically engineered for the Lagree Method. Lagree also refined the Proformer into the Megaformer.

Physique was founded in Florida in 2015. The company entered into a licensing agreement with Lagree in that year in which Physique could use trademarks including the Megaformer, Lagree Method, and Lagree Studio, as well as using the Lagree Method and agreeing to purchase Megaformers from Lagree. Physique was prohibited from making or using knock-off Megaformers. The lease also provided that Lagree could terminate with 30 days written notice, but another provision provided that notice of non-performance had to allow a 30-day cure period.

Over the ten-year relationship between Lagree and Physique, Lagree was largely absent from day-to-day operations. Lagree personnel visited three times for a trainer certification program and once for Physique’s grand opening. There were no regular audits or inspections, no maintenance reporting, and no inspection or management of Physique’s marketing materials.

Over the years, Physique began to have trouble keeping reliably functioning Megaformers. They contacted Lagree for repairs, refurbishment, or replacement of machines, but after continued difficulty, in July 2025, bought machines and replacement parts at a much cheaper price from an unaffiliated seller. A month later, Lagree learned of the use of knock-off Megaformers and a Lagree representative visited Physique for two minutes and observed two machines. On October 1, 2025, Lagree sent a termination letter to Physique, saying that the use of counterfeit Megaformers terminated the licensing agreement and that Physique had to stop using Lagree’s trademarks.

Court’s ruling. The court ultimately found that Lagree was not entitled to a preliminary injunction because it had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and there was no likelihood of consumer confusion. The court found that Lagree had likely forfeited its right to the marks by engaging in naked licensing, which occurs when a licensor fails to maintain adequate control over the licensee. There is no requirement of subjective intent for a finding of naked licensing.

The court notes that Lagree, under the contract, did not have the right to inspect or force maintenance of the Megaformers. Absent control or supervision, even the terms of the contract were not sufficient for the court to find sufficient control by Lagree. Additionally, in this case, the court found a lack of actual control demonstrated by the parties’ conduct. This also, the court held, was not a situation in which Lagree could plead reasonable reliance on Physique’s ability and integrity to perform quality control.

Finally, the court also found no likelihood of consumer confusion, noting that it was unclear whether Lagree had actually terminated the licensing agreement, which would make Physique’s use of the marks authorized and not confusing. Given the lack of compliance with the 30-day cure period, the court also found that confusion element fatal to the case for a preliminary injunction.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-10834-ODW-MBK.

Judge: Wright, O.

Attorneys: Meredith L. Williams (Rutan and Tucker LLP) for Lagree Fitness, Inc. Robert Mouradian (K&L Gates LLP) for Studio Physique, LLC.

Companies: Lagree Fitness, Inc.; Studio Physique, LLC

Cases: Trademark CaliforniaNews