訴訟

ABOUT PILATES

The Pilates Lawsuit

Court overturns Pilates Trademarks

What’s in a name? Plenty, especially if the name is “Pilates,” one of the hottest fitness trends in America. An October 2000 decision in Manhattan’s federal court declared that Pilates, like yoga and karate, is an exercise method and not a trademark. The decision affected thousands of Pilates instructors who had been prevented from saying that they taught Pilates. “Imagine if you were a yoga teacher, and couldn‘t say ‘yoga’ – you were forced to describe it in some other way,” said Marie José Blom-Lawrence, a Pilates instructor since 1980. “Pilates instructors were in the same boat.”

The four-year case pitted Sean Gallagher, owner of the Manhattan-based Pilates Studio, against Ken Endelman and Balanced Body Inc., the world‘s largest manufacturer of Pilates equipment. On October 19, 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Miriam Cedarbaum ruled that the Pilates trademarks were invalid. She directed the United States Patent and Trademark Office to cancel the marks immediately.

Pilates ruled “generic”

The Court‘s 93-page opinion, which invalidated Gallagher’s trademarks for Pilates exercise services and Pilates equipment, found that Pilates is a generic term. Since “consumers identify the word ‘Pilates’ as a particular method of exercise,” the Court found, “plaintiff cannot monopolize [it].” Gallagher was also found to have “deliberately attempted to mislead” the United States Patent and Trademark office by falsely claiming in sworn documents that he had manufactured Pilates equipment. ................. detail

---

普拉提訴訟

曼哈頓聯邦法院 2000 年 10 月的一項裁決宣布，普拉提與瑜伽和空手道一樣，是一種鍛煉方法，而不是商標。 這項決定影響了數千名普拉提教練，他們被禁止承認自己教導普拉提。

「想像一下，如果你是瑜珈老師，不能說『瑜珈'，你就被迫用其他方式來描述它，」自1980 年起擔任普拉提教練的瑪麗·何塞·布洛姆-勞倫斯(Marie José Blom-Lawrence) 說。

“普拉提教練的處境是一樣的。"

在這起歷時四年的案件中，曼哈頓普拉提工作室的老闆肖恩·加拉格爾(Sean Gallagher) 與世界上最大的普拉提設備製造商肯·恩德曼(Ken Endelman) 和Balanced Body Inc. 展開了對峙。 2000年10月19日，美國地方法院法官Miriam Cedarbaum裁定普拉提商標無效。 她指示美國專利商標局立即取消這些商標。

普拉提規定“通用”

法院長達 93 頁(連結下幹PDF)的意見宣告了加拉格爾的普拉提運動服務和普拉提設備商標無效，並認為普拉提是一個通用術語。 法院認為，由於“消費者將‘普拉提’這個詞視為一種特殊的鍛煉方法”，“原告不能壟斷[它]。” 加拉格爾還被發現「故意試圖誤導」美國專利商標局，在宣誓文件中謊稱他製造了普拉提設備。

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.pilates.com/resources/aboutpilates/pilates-decision.pdf

詳細內容

https://www.pilates.com/the-pilates-lawsuit

________________________________________

國外導師有不同看法, 當中看有以下... .. 當然在未有法庭訴訟前, 有一批導師正被這一位擁有商標持有人收取費用, 另外亦都阻止沒有接受付費安排的導師使用名字, 在當時人立場來說並不好受. 尤其當時候的導師們也是直接跟隨第一代導師學習的.

誰可以聲稱教授普拉提？

簡單的事實是，沒有任何一個組織可以控制誰可以自稱是普拉提教練。 根據美國曼哈頓地區法院地區法官 Miriam Cedarbaum 2000 年 10 月 20 日的裁決，普拉提不是商標用語。 相反，它是一個通用術語，就像有氧運動或瑜伽一樣。

這樣做的好處是，作為一名教師，你不必向機構（或個人）支付版稅來使用普拉提這個名字。

壞消息是，對於誰使用這個術語沒有監管。 有人可以自稱是普拉提老師，並帶領班級進行一小時的仰臥起坐。