High Stakes: WHOOP’s Screenless Tracker Design Lands in Federal Court in Global IP Test

By tfk, the5krunner | Published: October 19, 2025

The battle for wearable technology design is escalating. Boston-based WHOOP recently initiated legal action against a Chinese competitor, Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology (LEXQI), claiming the firm has created a wholesale imitation of its minimalist, screenless tracker. This key case, filed in September 2025, tests the limits of protecting aesthetic design as trade dress in the functional world of fitness tech.

The Design Identity in Dispute

WHOOP’s lawsuit has three aspects trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin. At the core of the complaint is the distinctive look and feel of the device, which WHOOP insists acts as a source identifier for its brand, owing to extensive marketing and public visibility, often cited in campaigns like “WHOOP in the Wild.”

The company is seeking to protect specific elements of its design, which it claims are non-functional and unique:

• The characteristic U-shaped hook and clasp mechanism
• The distinctive hinged sides.
• The rectangular sensor module.
• The unique strap and sensor configuration.

A Dual Challenge for WHOOP

According to court filings seen by the author, Lexqi has been selling its strikingly similar devices through various Amazon storefronts (such as EGQINR and SGJIK), seemingly undeterred by WHOOP’s prior cease-and-desist letters. More notably, Lexqi has taken steps to secure U.S. market legitimacy by filing a U.S. design patent in 2024 and obtaining necessary FCC authorisations.

This situation presents WHOOP with a complex, two-fold challenge: It must not only halt the alleged infringement by stopping the sale of lookalike products but also dismantle the perceived legitimacy granted by Lexqi’s strategic use of the U.S. IP and regulatory frameworks.

Example images of Lexqi’s Amazon listings

EXPERT ANALYST VIEW

At a tactical level, Lexqi’s patent filing will present a few problems to Whoop, who will eventually reject it and also, later, win the case for trade dress infringement (UK: Passing Off).

Strategically, it is a different matter. Global manufacturers seeking U.S. market entry are increasingly using the US legal system to legitimise their claims in the eyes of the consumer and delay the incumbents trying to stop them.

Companies similar to Whoop should note this worrying trend in all legal jurisdictions.

 

Proving ‘Secondary Meaning’: A Legal Hurdle

For WHOOP to succeed, it must convince the court that its design has acquired secondary meaning—that consumers immediately associate the design with the WHOOP brand, regardless of the logo. Evidence submitted to support this claim includes clear instances of consumer confusion:

• Amazon customer reviews referring to Lexqi’s copycat products as a “WHOOP band.”
• The strap’s high-profile, non-advertising recognition, such as when Prince William was photographed wearing one, establishes its distinctiveness in the public consciousness.

Other tech review sites have repeatedly used the phrase “Whoop Killer”, implying similarities. This site has used the phrase ‘Not a Whoop competitor’ and another playful title, ‘Whoop tickler’. The other sites probably help Whoop more in this instance.

Yet, proving distinctiveness in this context is notoriously difficult. Trade dress protection is often challenging where design elements are deemed functional. Furthermore, lacking crucial quantitative data—like formal consumer surveys or detailed advertising spend figures—may weaken WHOOP’s ability to prove the extensive public recognition courts typically require.

The Wider IP Tension

As mentioned, the case underscores the increasing tension between established U.S. brands and foreign manufacturers, where the latter leverage U.S. intellectual property and regulatory systems.

WHOOP is seeking financial damages, disgorgement of Lexqi’s profits, and robust injunctive relief to prevent future sales. The outcome of this dispute will clarify how far trade dress law can protect aesthetic choices in a technological product category where function and form are so closely intertwined.