IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—D. Mass.: Fitness-tracker maker secures preliminary injunction against French wearable-device company, (Jun 4, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

The plaintiff was likely to prove that its wearable device’s trade dress was distinctive and nonfunctional, and the accused products were nearly identical to the asserted trade dress.

A federal district court in Massachusetts has granted a preliminary injunction to a fitness-tracker manufacturer in a trade-dress infringement dispute against a French wearable-device company, finding that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on its Lanham Act claim and faced a presumption of irreparable harm. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s trade dress was likely protectable because it had been used for more than a decade, was nonfunctional, and had acquired distinctiveness in the marketplace. The court further found that the defendant’s device closely resembled the plaintiff’s product and was likely to cause consumer confusion (Whoop, Inc. v. Serinity Group, No. 1:25-cv-13578-FDS (D. Mass. Jun. 3, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Whoop, Inc., is a U.S.-based technology company that produces wearable devices that track sleep, recovery, strain, and other health metrics. The defendant, Serinity Group, doing business as Aurora, is a French manufacturer of health-monitoring wearable devices.

Whoop launched the first commercial version of its wearable device in 2015. According to the complaint, every version incorporated the same trade dress, consisting of a continuous fabric band that wrapped over a faceless device and included thin metal accents on the sides. Whoop alleged that years of sales, advertising, and public recognition caused consumers to associate that design with the company.

Whoop alleged that it discovered in October 2025 that Aurora was selling what appeared to be a knockoff version of the Whoop wearable through its website. After Aurora failed to respond to a cease-and-desist letter, Whoop filed this lawsuit asserting federal and state claims, including trade-dress infringement under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Whoop subsequently sought a preliminary injunction barring further sales of the accused products during the litigation. Aurora did not appear in the action or oppose the motion.

Trade dress. The court first considered whether the asserted trade dress was entitled to protection. To prevail, Whoop had to show that the trade dress was used in commerce, was non-functional, and had acquired distinctiveness. Citing Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. v. White Mountain International LLC, 747 F. Supp. 3d 292 (D. Mass. 2024), the court found that Whoop was likely to satisfy all three requirements.

Further, the court found that Whoop had used the design continuously in commerce since at least 2015. It also concluded that the design was likely nonfunctional. Applying the functionality principles discussed in TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001), the court found no evidence that the design affected the product’s cost or quality or provided utilitarian advantages unavailable through alternative designs. Instead, Whoop’s advertising emphasized the product’s distinctive appearance rather than any utilitarian benefits arising from the trade dress.

Additionally, the court found that Whoop was likely to establish secondary meaning. Although Whoop offered no consumer survey evidence, it presented substantial circumstantial evidence. The company had used the design for more than 10 years, had spent heavily on advertising through television, social media, and celebrity endorsements, and had submitted evidence that media outlets and consumers identified the product solely by its appearance. The court concluded that those facts strongly supported a finding that consumers associated the design with a single source.

Consumer confusion. Next, the court addressed whether consumers were likely to confuse Aurora’s product with the Whoop wearable. Applying the First Circuit’s multi-factor likelihood-of-confusion test, the court found that most factors favored Whoop.

A side-by-side comparison showed that the products were nearly identical. Although minor differences existed in the metal components and buckle mechanisms, the court found that the similarities were unmistakable and that the devices were virtually indistinguishable from a distance. Both products were marketed as wearable fitness trackers.

The court also found that both companies used the internet as a sales channel and targeted general consumers. While Aurora did not appear to engage in extensive advertising, the images displayed on its website closely resembled Whoop’s promotional materials. The court further found circumstantial evidence suggesting that Aurora intentionally copied Whoop’s design and marketing approach, noting allegations that Aurora used similar photography, marketing language, and even some Whoop imagery in its promotional materials. Aurora’s failure to appear left those assertions unrebutted.

Although Whoop did not produce evidence of actual consumer confusion, the court found that the similarity of the products, the strength of the asserted trade dress, and the overlap in sales channels and customers outweighed that deficiency. Citing Boston Duck Tours, LP v. Super Duck Tours, LLC, 531 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008), the court noted that similarity is often the most important factor when direct competitors sell comparable products. The court therefore concluded that Whoop was likely to prove consumer confusion and ultimately succeed on the merits of its trade-dress infringement claim.

Injunction factors. Having found a likelihood of success on the merits, the court concluded that Whoop was entitled to the Lanham Act’s rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm. Because Aurora did not appear, it offered no evidence to rebut that presumption.

The court also found that the balance of equities favored Whoop. It noted that Whoop had spent more than a decade developing and promoting products featuring the asserted trade dress. Although the record suggested that Aurora might suffer some harm from an injunction, including possible destruction of inventory held by Amazon, the court concluded that those harms were outweighed by Whoop’s strong likelihood of success and the continuing risk to its goodwill. Finally, the court found that the public interest favored enforcement of federal trademark laws and protection against consumer confusion. The court therefore determined that all four preliminary-injunction factors supported relief.

Bond requirement. Because Aurora had not appeared and the court had little information concerning the potential damages it might suffer if wrongfully enjoined, the court required Whoop to post only a nominal injunction bond of $1 before the injunction took effect.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-13578-FDS.

Judge: Saylor, F.

Attorneys: Joshua M. Dalton (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP) for Whoop, Inc.

Companies: Whoop, Inc.; Serinity Group d/b/a Aurora

Cases: Trademark MassachusettsNews GCNNews