Polar issues rebuttal to Whoop’s Trade Dress Infringement Allegations

Polar has publicly denied Whoop’s claims of Trade Dress infringement, as detailed in a statement to this site.

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. [Polar, 20 October 2025]

Background & Context

There appears to be an unusual number of IP cases between sports and wearables companies at the moment, Whoop vs. Polar is the latest. All involve infringement of intellectual property rights to some degree. Normally, this is due to patent infringement related to inventions. Whoop’s two cases cover a different area of IP law—Trade Dress. This is where an established product’s ‘distinctive look’ is broadly copied by a competitor, either intentionally or otherwise.

Thoughts

There are differing degrees of merit in all cases. None of the defendants have backed down.

These are potentially consequential cases. Think back to the widely reported Apple vs. Massimo patent case. That was ‘only’ for the SpO2 sensors part of the Watch, a relatively unimportant component. However, the court ruling stopped Apple Watch imports for a while and required Apple to disable the feature, with knock-on effects on other algorithms. Apple eventually designed a fix that ran the same algorithm on the smartphone rather than the Watch!.

Other than financial damages, the worst case scenario for Polar is that it has to stop selling Polar LOOP in the USA.

For the complete guide to Polar watches, sensors and training science, see the Polar hub on this site.

For context on the Polar Loop’s position in the screenless recovery band category, including how it compares to Whoop, Amazfit and the Fitbit Air, see our complete category guide.

Polar LOOP Review: Accurate, But Not a Whoop Competitor

In the Strava vs. Garmin case, there is the (unlikely) potential for Strava to go out of business should Garmin restrict access to its APIs, even though it is Strava bringing the case. If the case goes the other way, Strava seeks to stop Garmin sales with devices that use heatmap/segment features, but I would say that outcome is impossible.

The Suunto/Garmin case has hardly been reported, yet it is perhaps the most significant. Suunto is claiming fundamental infringement of 5 areas of its IP. If Garmin had to stop using the features in question, the outcome would be catastrophic but unlikley – more likely would be financial damages and the requirement to pay a licencing fee, which Garmin could afford.

• Whoop vs Polar, the details on the 3 aspects of Trade Dress in question
• Suunto vs. Garmin, the details on the 5 core features in question
• Strava vs. Garmin, the details on the heatmaps, segments and breach of contract
• Whoop vs. Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology, court filing
• Whoop vs. Lexqi, the details on Trade Dress Infringement

Last Updated on 14 June 2026 by the5krunner

the5krunner

tfk is the founder and author of the5krunner, an independent endurance sports technology publication. With 20 years of hands-on testing of GPS watches and wearables, and competing in triathlons at an international age-group level, tfk provides in-depth expert analysis of fitness technology for serious athletes and endurance sport competitors. ID