BOSTON, Mass. — A federal judge in Massachusetts has granted WHOOP a preliminary injunction against Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., ordering the company to immediately halt U.S. sales of its wearable health tracker while litigation continues.
The injunction was issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in connection with a trade dress infringement lawsuit brought by WHOOP. The court found that WHOOP is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims and that continued sales of Lexqi’s product could cause consumer confusion and irreparable harm if not stopped.
WHOOP filed the lawsuit to protect the distinctive design of its wearable device, which it describes as a continuous fabric band that wraps over a faceless device with thin metal accents along the sides. In its ruling, the court noted that the WHOOP trade dress has been used by the company for more than a decade and has been central to its business during that time. The court further determined that Lexqi’s device is nearly identical to the WHOOP product embodying that trade dress.
“WHOOP members trust us with their data and rely on our technology to make meaningful decisions about their health and performance,” said Jason Lynch, chief administrative officer and chief legal officer of WHOOP. “Protecting our intellectual property is essential to preserving that trust. This ruling reinforces our commitment to innovation on behalf of our members and affirms the importance of respecting original technology.”
WHOOP filed the lawsuit in September 2025, asserting claims under the Lanham Act and related laws. The court’s decision underscores the importance of protecting consumers from confusion in the marketplace and ensuring that competition is driven by innovation rather than imitation.
WHOOP said it will continue to defend its intellectual property to safeguard the authenticity, quality, and integrity of its products as the case proceeds. The litigation is captioned WHOOP, Inc. v. Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., Case No. 25-12690-FSS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
