Peleton advert

Jacksyee

PhilipPirrip wrote:

The UK advert I've seen is very different. Rather than the self-congratulatory holistic pap my take is it's more targeted at those who have or intend to have gym membership but for various justifications don't or won't make best use of it.

It's also only hints at what's on offer so as to engourage people to go and find out more rather than in the US ad where they're being spoon-fed and having their egos massaged.

Rule Britannia!

Matthewfalle

Jacksyee wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

The UK advert I've seen is very different. Rather than the self-congratulatory holistic pap my take is it's more targeted at those who have or intend to have gym membership but for various justifications don't or won't make best use of it.

It's also only hints at what's on offer so as to engourage people to go and find out more rather than in the US ad where they're being spoon-fed and having their egos massaged.

Rule Britannia!

whats she ruling? from the MFs current watch tower in Portsmouth its seems to be not a lot but perhaps you can inform us differently.

Matthewfalle

is there a difference between Peloton & Zwift?

darkhairedlord

Matthewfalle wrote:

is there a difference between Peloton & Zwift?

I know little about zwift but peloton will sell you a £30 Argos exercise bike with a landfill tablet nailed to it for £2k.

Matthewfalle

darkhairedlord wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

is there a difference between Peloton & Zwift?

I know little about zwift but peloton will sell you a £30 Argos exercise bike with a landfill tablet nailed to it for £2k.

but above it has been said that youcan use your current bike and trainer.

so,

using current bike and trainer,

is there any difference between peloton and zwift?

Vino'sGhost

Alex222 wrote:

Peloton just sent an threatening legal letter to Shane Miller, telling him to stop using the word 'peloton' on his YouTube video titles. Shows what sort of company they are

I heard they like it bare in the arse

First.Aspect

ChippyK wrote:

Dabber wrote:

redvee wrote:

Seems sense has prevailed today.

https://twitter.com/gplama/status/1076925328721768448

I suspect that common sense had nothing to do with it. More like the backlash and damage to their brand made them back down.

Solicitor charged £2k an hour to advise this may infringe their IP, £8k to draft and send a cease and desist letters, then another £2k an hour to advise this is damaging their brand, then finally another £8k to send a matter closed letter.
Only one winner.

The trade marks in question are US only, as far as I can tell. They also seem to protect the word and/or logo specifically in relation to fitness training classes, videos and associated indoor training equipment. This is fair enough. Build a business with a brand, protect that brand so that others can't benefit from your efforts.

The problem here is that a US law firm sent a letter (by email) to someone in Australia in relation to activities which seem to fairly clearly not infringe if conducted in the US. In addition, what is the point of a large-ish fitness firm pursuing a private individual in a different continent? What damages could they show?

The lawyers may have been acting under direct instruction. It is not uncommon for rights holders to have a poor understanding of the scope of those rights. Either way, the letter shouldn't have been sent and puts a private individual in a difficult position of needing to take legal advice themselves.

This sort of thing annoys me - anyone remember the "Tour de" Yorkshire snafu a year or two ago, as well? - because it is completely avoidable and gives IP rights a bad name, whereas the reality is that they are a vital commercial tool.

poweredbyidris

Playing the ol' 'Devils Advocate' role for a second - doesn't this come down to precedent (am sure this was discussed with the Roubaix case)?

Was this is more a case of Peloton showing that they will protect their brand and trademarks, which could be used in case in the future which does actually affect them? If they do nothing, then a future defendant could point to this and say 'well, you weren't bothered about protecting your brand then'

This way, Peloton can show that they have fully considered the case publicly from a legal standpoint and decided not to take it any further as it has no impact

Vino'sGhost

PoweredByIdris wrote:

Playing the ol' 'Devils Advocate' role for a second - doesn't this come down to precedent (am sure this was discussed with the Roubaix case)?

Was this is more a case of Peloton showing that they will protect their brand and trademarks, which could be used in case in the future which does actually affect them? If they do nothing, then a future defendant could point to this and say 'well, you weren't bothered about protecting your brand then'

This way, Peloton can show that they have fully considered the case publicly from a legal standpoint and decided not to take it any further as it has no impact

that sounds like sound advice from lawyers keen to identify future loss. Its not an expense its an insurance policy

First.Aspect

There is an argument that the value of your IP diminishes unless you enforce it. This isn't something I have really seen in practice. Rather I would say that your IP loses value unless you seek to enforce it against competitors.

In contrast, this kind of semi random sabre rattling doesn't seem to ever help, does it?

Contrary to popular belief, very few legal advisers will advise their clients to do things that are rash or that will waste their money. It is short term thinking and bites you in the bum really quite soon.