Rogue Fitness trademarking STRONGMAN: The Sandbag Controversy

Thank you for being so receptive to questions and for Rogue taking an interest and playing a huge part in the growth of Strongman.

My main concern is that its trademarking the word STRONGMAN as it pertains to various fitness equipment. I understand wanted to protect products you developed such as the throwing bags and not wanting other companies to make copies but the wording of the trademark makes it seem as if it applies to any equipment using the term STRONGMAN. I know you said on social media you won’t enforce it this way but there are lots of small businesses that it could potentially effect and taking it purely on your word is unsettling.

Below are a few of the questions I have compiled.

1. How do they justify trademarking the usage of word that dozens if not hundreds of other companies have used in the targeted fashion to describe their products for years, some decades?

   “Because it’s legal and I can” is an acceptable answer, we just want honesty.

2. Why wouldn’t you trademark ‘Rogue Strongman’ or something similar instead?
   Why did you not advertise your trademark application so that the community had time to support/oppose the trademark?
   Does the trademark only apply to ‘STRONGMAN’ or to ‘Strongman’, ‘strongman’ and other variations of the word?
   If I produce and sell a product under the name of strongman sandbag, strongman log, etc. that does not use your proprietary design, should I expect to hear from your lawyers?
   What are you expecting to gain from this trademark since it does not protect your intellectual property?

3. What’s to stop Rogue from extending their reach beyond ‘defending the IP’ of their products in two or three years? What happens if the company becomes publicly traded?

4. How have they demonstrated that their trademark claim is distinctively different from its original meaning?

Below are the answers from Bill Henniger

Hi Kalle, Completely understand the concern

1) My IP team has been putting comprehensive protection on anything we come out with.

In this they applied for the name we were using on Strongman bags.  We also filed patents.

Cerberus the company that kicked off the video is in violation of our patents.  They got a cease and desist hence the issue.   He blocked me from his facebook page when I called him on it.   We did not invent the sandbag in its original form but we did design the style, type and how the bag was made etc.  That is what we have a patent on.  Steve Slaters built this with our sewing team from a sketch.

Enough people had the concern you do and I said we did this for bag stuff only.  I told the IP team to amend the mark to be just that, we had and have no intention of doing damage to the community.  

That has been filed and can be researched etc, should publish to the net sometime soon.

The IP team is basically trying to setup barriers to companies copying the bags.  There was zero intention to use it for other items but I can see the community basically has to trust me that we won’t enforce it so the I instructed the legal team to make it exactly what I said and give up any other rights etc.

2) We didn’t try to use it because like I said we didn’t do this to try and become a trademark troll.  We just did it to protect the bags.  

3) The mark only applies to use with equipment, so not events, people, etc.   I had them change it so it was even more narrow and just dealt with bags so that there is zero question as to our intention.

This category of mark is only for equipment not the sport etc.

4) If someone does not violate the design items then there is no problem but again with us narrowing the scope you don’t have to take my word for it, it will be via the USPTO

5) The IP team expected to be able to protect the bag from people knocking it off.  There were companies that knocked off the design and called it the same name, some used our website copy etc.

Steve Slaters and Laurie our sewing SME designed the main bag, cyclone and throwing bag.  They all have trademark and patent protection.

6) By me changing the scope of the mark it can’t be used lets say if we took the company public (which we aren’t) I respected those questions people asked and if I will say it then I will put it in writing

That is done, all is filed.

7) The mark was done via the connection to the bag etc.  There are many other strongman trademarks out there with it in the name or in a different category.

If you want I could have our IP attorney answer that in more depth.  Happy to do that

—–

Long story short I see the concern and don’t want it to be one.  Any threat was killed so that the community doesn’t have to worry about it.   

We need to get back to growing the ASC, WSM, Legends Series and documentaries.  We want to provide value not extract it.  

Carrying that on is our only mission not trying to enforce a mark against great people.

You can see both side by side here