Body Armor Vows to Fight “Ridiculous” Under Armour Lawsuit

Calling Under Armor’s lawsuit against the company “a prime example of trademark bullying by a corporate giant,” Body Armor says it’s ready to do battle with the sports apparel company. In its first response to the trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Under Armour in April, Body Armor, a multifunction beverage, stated that “it is nearly impossible that consumers or retailers of either brand would confuse the two” and vowed to fight what chairman Mike Repole called a “ridiculous” claim.

In its lawsuit, Under Armour asserts that Body Armor is engaging in “willful violations of Under Armour’s trademark rights,” particularly with regard to Body Armor’s logo and tagline. The sports apparel company claims that the interlocking braid on the front of Body Armor’s labels closely resembles its own interlocking U and A logo, and that Body Armor’s “Prevent + Protect” tagline infringes upon Under Armour’s famous “Protect This House” slogan.  Under Armour said that the violations are exceptionally egregious because both companies have a similar target consumer group.

Unsurprisingly, Body Armor disagrees. In its official response to the lawsuit, the company stated that “Under Armour and BODYARMOR operate in disparate industries, produce distinctly unrelated products, and share no branding or logo similarities.”

Repole, who joined Body Armor as an investor and “non-executive chairman” in January, condemned the lawsuit and said that the company had the expertise and financial resources to fight the case. Recall that Repole is the co-founder and former president of Vitaminwater, which was acquired by The Coca-Cola Co., Inc. for $4.1 billion in 2007.

“Under Armour is wasting their time, energy, and financial capital launching a meritless lawsuit against a beverage company, meanwhile taking focus away from their actual apparel competitors,” Repole said. “If I were a shareholder of Under Armour, I would have plenty of questions and concerns.”

Body Armor founder Lance Collins echoed Repole’s comments and noted that the beverage company registered its trademark with the United States Patent & Trademark Office more than five years ago without receiving any objection from Under Armour.

“The fact that Under Armour is just now bringing this suit… further demonstrates that their claims are entirely meritless,” said Collins.

  • Daniel

    This suit sounds more like Under Armour is thinking about jumping into the beverage business as well. This quote tells of its underlying thoughts ”
    Under Armour said that the violations are exceptionally egregious because both companies have a similar target consumer group.”

  • Jurgis

    The confusion is obvious in two brands! Before taking a name prove that you own it. Good luck

  • Carl

    Wouldn’t want to be in their shoes…to loosely paraphrase the old Nike commercial….”Lance KNOWS trademarks”! Similar to Daniel’s comment below, the underwear company may be tipping their hand about potential entries into the beverage category. Reminds me of a product tie in with another famous sports apparel (swimwear?) brand as a sportswater….

  • Jerrod

    Everyone I have ever spoken with, on both sides of the buyers desk, thought that Body Armour was part of the Under Armour family of products. In fact, we were thinking of adding Body Armour to our set because we thought it was part of Under Armour and hoped Under Armour’s mass appeal would help with the sell through of this beverage. Under Armour simply has to poll 100 objective people. The results regarding the confusing similarities of both trade marks and design marks will be obvious.

  • R.I.P. Body Armor

    It is absurdly confusing. I have been wondering since day 1 how they could get away with that, and it’s obvious they can’t.

  • Ryan

    I always thought it was under armor till now. It is confusing… sucky boat for Body to be in.

  • georgemv

    looks like initial negotiations for a buyout have begun

  • Rafa

    Body Odor is a terrible failed brand in NY please go queitly…..

  • MAR

    Under Armour is not getting into the beverage industry. They share similar target consumer groups because of sports/fitness. The two similar consumer groups are sportswear consumers and sport drink consumers.

  • Egypt

    This brand is trying to use Under Armor’s hard earned consumers to buy into their similar named & pathetic beverage. they also share a similar tag line/slogan. Who would really buy such a drink anyways?? Maybe if it really did come from The UA family….?

  • Carl

    How do you know Under Armour is not getting into Bevs? Most of the other fitness apparel companies have explored it (Reebok, Nike, etc) and there are rumors that UA people have met with a large Bevco in NY. By the way, companies that have a trademark in clothing classifications are not necessarily entitled to the same rights of protection in other categories within which they do not compete. This reason alone has likely been part of the consideration for a bev entrant among the large sports apparel companies. Relatively easy way to defend your marks in related categories…regardless of whether or not you plan to create a billion dollar brand….once you’re in market within a class of trade you can register the mark with proof of use (versus simply carpet bombing the P&TO with applications across multiple categories only to eventually lose them when you dont actually launch a product in the categories).

    In a sense, that’s what’s playing out here with Body Armor. Under Armour may or may not have any legitimate claim depending on whether or not they actually ever registered (and ideally USED) their marks with P&TO in beverage/supplement categories. If not, they are attempting to strongarm Lance/Mike simply because they are big….which isn’t a wise move.

  • Tjones18

    First of all isn’t the spelling different? Armor & armour. Secondly, the beverage, its a drink, i haven’t drank my clothes lately but i know the difference. Has anyone of you whiny complainers think about this lawsuit or just dig the underwear? Personally, the drink rules and has nothing to do with the underarmour. Clear? Crystal. Drink it, believe, don’t hate. I love BA & UA, but is is the same, do I think it’s the same, huh? NO. Enjoy both, stay active.

  • kurt

    What would UA have to do if they did want to enter this catigory
    and weren’t successful with this suit? They wouldn’t be able to
    use thier own name?

Have news? Have a new product? Tell us