But now with the latest dispute, lawyers are expected to increase their own heart rates arguing which of their clients may use  “Body Revolution” in the fitness industry.

In September 1, 2010, USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) issued a trademark for Body Revolution to someone other than Jillian Michaels. The mark governed use for “personal trainer series, physical fitness instruction, sports training services in class 41″. The USPTO indicated that the mark went into commerce in October 2010. Accordingly, the USPTO issued a trademark serial number 85378899 to its owner, Corinne Greenhalgh.

Corinne Greenhalgh therein became surprised that Jillian Michaels and Empowered Media, LLC began to, not only allegedly use “Body Revolution” in commerce, but also apply for a trademark for “Jillian Michaels Body Revolution”.

Apparently, the USPTO was also surprised by Michaels’ application as well. The USPTO wrote Michaels’ attorney that Greenhalgh’s mark “precedes [Michael's ...] filing date.”

They added “If the mark in the reverenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.” The Trademark Office ruled that “action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier filed referenced application.”

Michaels has now been sued by Greenhalgh dba Body Revolution in US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Greenhalgh claims that many years ago she “created fitness programming using the trade name” and claims to have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars “into the creation and promotion of the mark” and use ever since. She claims that she was granted a trademark for Body Revolution on April 3, 2012 this year after years of using the mark in commerce, allegedly far before Jillian Michaels.

There is another twist to the legal flexing in this case as well.

Apparently, Greenhalgh claims, that after Michaels’ application was suspended by the USPTO, “Michaels and EM [allegedly] contacted Greenhalgh in order to obtain a ‘Co-Existence and Consent Agreement’ in an attempt to circumvent the suspension sot that they could register Michaels’ infringing mark.” She purportedly declined Michaels’ alleged requests.

Greenhalgh is asking for an award of damages, costs, attorneys fees, punitive damages, and other relief against Michaels. Michaels has yet to reply to the complaint. Greenhalgh is represented by Timothy Perry of Perry, Krumsiek & Jack, LLP of Boston.