Fitness Feud: Whoop Sues Polar Over ‘Wholesale Copy’ of Wearable Design

Updated: 18 October 2025

Wearable wars explode as Whoop accuses Polar of copying its original, iconic design.

What’s Just Happened to Polar?

Wearable technology is becoming a legal minefield, as yet another major challenge is filed between key industry players. On October 14, 2025, Whoop filed a lawsuit against Finnish fitness tracker maker Polar, accusing the legacy wearable company of creating a “wholesale copy” of its signature device design.

The case will be heard in New York and centres on claims of trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, a key US federal law governing trademarks and unfair competition.

What Is Trade Dress Infringement?

Trade Dress Infringement is a form of intellectual property protection that covers the overall look and feel of a product. The look and feel play a significant role in identifying the product to consumers. Essentially, we are talking about important visual similarities between a new product and an established incumbent that confuse the public.

Real World Examples

A related case is Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of America (1920), where the US Supreme Court famously ruled that the trademarked name “Coca-Cola” deserved legal protection because it had acquired “secondary significance” in the mind of the public, distinguishing the product from imitators.

For comparison, in the UK, similar laws are referred to as ‘passing off.’ A famous recent case was with Colin the Caterpillar – a cake in the form of a children’s caterpillar toy sold by M&S. Aldi was widely believed by the public to have made a copycat product, but reached an out-of-court settlement.

Whoop vs Polar – A Timeline

This timeline will be updated as events unfold, including events from a related case.

1. Whoop originally launched in 2o15
2. Amazfit Helio launch on June 24, 2024.
3. Polar launches 360, an earlier, visually identical version of Polar Loop for the B2B market, on December 11, 2024
4. Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology launches its products around April 2025 (estimated from FCC filing date).
5. Whoop 5.0 and MG models updated on May 8, 2025.
6. Whoop sends a cease and desist letter to Yuzhou Du at Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology, July 2025
7. Polar LOOP launched on September 3, 2025
8. Whoops starts a separate and similar copycat case against Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology and the products it sells on Amazon (e.g. Hadrono), September 22, 2025.
9. Whoop Inc. files the case against Polar Electro Oy in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act). Damages are demanded and a cessation of sales of Polar LOOP in the USA, with a trial by jury. October 14, 2025,
10. Polar rebuts the allegations. October 20, 2025.

The Core of the Dispute: Design Similarity

Polar’s new LOOP screenless tracker band is at the heart of the wearable lawsuit. It launched on September 3rd, 2025, and was marketed by the company as a cheaper competitor to Whoop, although Polar never mentioned it by name.

Whoop argues that the visual appearance of the Polar Loop is visually indistinguishable from its own device, citing a specific set of design details it claims are strongly associated with the Whoop brand:

• Continuous Fabric Band over Sensor: The design features a textile strap that wraps continuously over the main sensor module.
• Faceless Front: A minimalist front with no screen.
• Metallic Accents: Metallic details on the clasp and sensor housing.

Whoop claims that these features are not necessary to be functional. And that their look and feel identifies the product as Whoop. They state that Polar’s alleged copying will cause confusion in customers’ eyes.

Polar LOOP: is it a copycat design?

Here is a recent image of my Polar LOOP and a stock image from Whoop with it oriented in a similar way.

 

Here are some points I would make

• Whoop’s design is more refined, polished and elegant.
• Both do have a strap-over design; however, the attachment mechanisms are entirely different.
• Whilst Whoop does have a strap-over design, the strap is covered by the ‘W’ branded hook end to its band.
• The look from the side is similar, but not often seen
• Whoop markets numerous replacement straps and apparel, where the product can be worn differently. There is not one unique Whoop look.
• Amatfit Helio is very similar in appearance to Polar and hence to Whoop
• Other brands like Coros and Wahoo have made similar straps, but none have a directly competitive ecosystem of features.

 

Contrast to the Clear Copycat produced by Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology

Whoop’s other case against Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology is interesting in that it highlights nearly identical products. But consider how they appear identical.

What makes them appear identical, in my opinion, is the single metal ‘band’ going over the strap. Polar LOOP has two bands that are thinner and subtly differently placed.

 

 

The Context: Subscription Model vs. One-Time Purchase

The legal clash arrives with an interesting commercial backdrop. While both companies have now introduced similar-looking screenless devices that track health and recovery metrics, their business models are fundamentally different:

• Whoop: Operates primarily on a subscription model, where owners pay a monthly or annual fee to access data and insights.
• Polar Loop is differently positioned as a one-time purchase for the band, with free lifetime access to all its features.

This clear pricing difference means that potential buyers may see Polar’s product as a more affordable, long-term option, potentially drawing customers away from Whoop. The absence of any other dispute between the companies suggests this claim is a swift response to a direct challenge. Whoop is worried.

The Stakes

Whoop is seeking material actions from the court, namely:

1. Damages: Monetary compensation for the harm to its brand allegedly caused by Polar’s infringement.
2. Injunction: A court order to immediately halt Polar’s sales and distribution of the current Polar Loop design in the US.

The key aspects determining the outcome will be whether Whoop can convince the court that its minimalist design elements are sufficiently non-functional to have a “secondary meaning”.

Bad News for Polar?

If successful, the lawsuit would probably force Polar to redesign a new device before restarting sales in the USA, which would probably take two years. It would be a significant legal victory for Whoop in protecting its distinctive aesthetic in the non-watch part of the wearable market.

Polar seeks to increase its presence in the US market after previously underperforming there. Shutting one of its products from the US market would be more inconvenient than fatal.

A victory would enable Whoop to take action against other competitors like Amazfit.

Whoop vs. Polar – An Expert Analysis

Despite the different pricing models, Whoop and Polar LOOP have broadly similar features and form factors. It will be easy to establish that they are direct competitors. Other than establishing the products as direct competitors, the products’ competencies are not relevant in this case. What matters are the physical similarities between the products and how customers and other members of the public might perceive that.

Here is my take on the chances of Whoop proving similarity in the three key areas of the case

• Continuous Fabric Band over Sensor: Whoop does not have a continuous fabric over the sensor. When worn on the wrist with standard bands, its band covers most of the sensor. In the related case, contrast the images of Polar LOOP with those from Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology. The latter are virtually identical, while Polar’s are similar.
• Faceless Front: This class of products inherently has a faceless front.  This criterion cannot be a necessary and sufficient characteristic for the case without giving Whoop de facto ownership rights of the product format (similar in some ways to how Oura seems to aim its legal efforts toward saying it invented the smartring, 2022)
• Metallic Accents: Metallic details on the clasp and sensor housing. Both designs have interchangeable bands, which are irrelevant to the look; what is relevant are the permanent, metallic aspects of the design. For Whoop, this is the branded outer face of the HOOK, which is the most visible metal part. Polar LOOP has two much thinner metal pieces visible from the top, which are part of an entirely different strap attachment mechanism. There is some visual similarity. From the sides, the two metal sensor pods look similar.

Polar’s job will be to negate each point.

In my opinion, the similarities of each of the three individual design aspects are not enough to classify the products as similar. In the round, these three factors together contribute to the similarity between the two products. Dismiss one or two of the design points, and Whoop’s case falls apart.

 

My Take

It seems that Whoop has a case here, but it appears less clear-cut than its case against Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology, whose products are nearly identical.

Remember this differs from some recent cases, which boiled down to ‘who invented what’. This time, it is whether or not Polar has copied Whoop – the copying doesn’t have to be intentional, and Whoop doesn’t have to prove that it invented the ‘strap over the sensor’ look. Nor does Whoop have to prove that a customer might buy Polar Loop by mistake instead of Whoop.

Whoop has to show there are a blend of aesthetic elements that define its product and that someone might visually mistake one for the other.

Might your sports friends see your Polar LOOP on your wrist and think it could be a Whoop? The answer is probably yes, and thus, I would say that Whoop’s brand has been diminished in some way by a cheaper rival.

Like it or not, I suspect Whoop has a fair chance of winning.

Further Sources

• Whoop vs. Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology, court filing
•  Whoop vs Polar, court filing.
• Amazfit Helio review – ‘A $99 whoop tickler’
• Polar Loop Review – ‘A quick look at why it’s not a Whoop competitor‘
• Whoop sues Bevel (similar app) – April 2026.
• Whoop 5.0 Review

Last Updated on 4 April 2026 by the5krunner