IIPLA Newsroom Access

Sign in with Google to continue in IP News.

Google SSO gives you the quickest path into the IIPLA newsroom, your reading access, and member-level continuity across articles. The full login page is still available if you prefer another option.

IIPLA News
Friday, May 1, 2026

WHOOP Files Trademark and Patent Suit Against Polar Over Fitness Tracker Design

Boston-based WHOOP seeks damages and U.S. sales ban, alleging Polar’s Loop tracker infringes on its protected design elements.

IIPLA News Deskanonymous access0 articles left this week
WHOOP Files Trademark and Patent Suit Against Polar Over Fitness Tracker Design

WHOOP, a Boston-based company specializing in wearable fitness technology, has filed a lawsuit against Finland’s Polar in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit, filed last week, accuses Polar of infringing on WHOOP’s patents and trade dress by allegedly copying the design of its signature faceless fitness tracker.

According to the complaint, WHOOP asserts that Polar’s Loop tracker is substantially similar in appearance to the WHOOP band, infringing on key aesthetic elements that serve to identify WHOOP’s product. The Polar Loop is a screen-free wearable fitness band that tracks heart rate, daily activities, and sleep around the clock, and is marketed as a subscription-free device with no monthly fees.

WHOOP’s allegations focus on several design features of the Polar Loop, including the use of a continuous fabric band stretched over the sensor, metallic side accents, and a front-facing design that lacks a display or buttons. The company contends that these elements are non-functional and serve as distinctive identifiers of the WHOOP brand, making them eligible for trade dress protection under U.S. law.

Trade dress protections in the United States apply only to non-functional design elements that help consumers identify the source of a product. WHOOP maintains that the design elements at issue are not functional and therefore qualify for such protection.

The lawsuit seeks damages, a jury trial, and an injunction to block the sale of the Polar Loop in the United States. The case is being brought under the Lanham Act, also known as the Trademark Act of 1946, which governs federal trademark and trade dress protections.

In response to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for Polar stated, “Polar firmly denies any allegations of intellectual property infringement. Our products are the result of decades of innovation and rigorous design processes, and we remain confident in the originality and integrity of the appearance and design of our products.”

The legal dispute comes at a time when WHOOP is also under regulatory scrutiny from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In July, the FDA sent a letter to WHOOP regarding its Blood Pressure Insights feature, which provides daily systolic and diastolic blood pressure estimates. The agency asserted that this feature qualifies as a medical device under federal law, as it is inherently associated with the diagnosis of hypo- and hypertension.

The FDA noted that WHOOP’s Blood Pressure Insights feature had not received premarket approval or 510(k) clearance, and that the company had failed to notify the agency before distributing the product. As a result, the FDA classified the device as both “adulterated” and “misbranded.”

In August, WHOOP CEO and founder Will Ahmed publicly addressed the FDA’s concerns in an interview with CNBC, which he shared on LinkedIn. Ahmed argued that the Blood Pressure Insights feature is intended for wellness purposes and should not fall under FDA regulation, citing the 21st Century Cures Act. He emphasized that the feature is similar to other wellness offerings from WHOOP, such as sleep, exercise, and nutrition tracking.

Ahmed stated that WHOOP stands behind the Blood Pressure Insights feature and intends to continue offering it, citing support from the company’s user base and a commitment to contesting the FDA’s position.

The outcome of WHOOP’s lawsuit against Polar and its ongoing regulatory dialogue with the FDA could have significant implications for the competitive landscape and regulatory environment in the wearable fitness technology sector.

Related Coverage

Continue in the newsroom

Back to newsroom
LitigationUSA

Crowell Secures $48 Million Jury Verdict for Kawasaki in Landmark Patent Case

San Francisco – March 19, 2026: Crowell & Moring achieved a decisive victory for Kawasaki Heavy Industries in the Northern District of California, obtaining a $48 million jury verdict after a two-week trial. The jury unanimously found that Rorze Corporation and its U.S. subsidiary, Rorze Automation, Inc., willfully in…

Friday, May 1, 2026
PatentsGlobal

US places India on priority watch list for Intellectual Property rights. What it means

+ 20 moreUS Iran War LIVETrendingHTCityElection 2026 LIVEAstrologyCricketHoroscope 2026US NewsHT PremiumHT The Next VoiceGamesHT BanglaHT TeluguBusinessReal EstateEducationLatest NewsLivemint The annual report reviews how effectively US trading partners safeguard IP rights such as patents, copyrights and trademarks.

Friday, May 1, 2026
PatentsIndia

Anand and Anand Launches National Conference Celebrating Indian Scientific Innovations

Anand and Anand, a leading Indian intellectual property law firm, has announced 'The Indian Science Inventions and Innovations Conference' as part of its 100th anniversary celebrations. The event, held under the Raj Anand Moot Court Competition, invites law students nationwide to research and present on Indian-origin…

Friday, May 1, 2026
PatentsUSA

Patent Litigation Icon Sam Baxter Steps Down After Five Decades at McKool Smith

Sam Baxter, a legendary figure in patent litigation and a cornerstone of McKool Smith’s trial team, has retired after more than fifty years in the legal profession. Renowned for his work in the Eastern District of Texas, Baxter’s career has shaped the landscape of intellectual property litigation, with his advocacy im…

Friday, May 1, 2026