Sweaty Betty, the British activewear brand of the moment, has been embroiled in a row over its advertising messages. Nixi Body, a new company producing leak-proof period underwear, caused an uproar. They then went on to blame Sweaty Betty for stealing their catchphrases. That changed dramatically when Sweaty Betty entered the fray with their own campaign in 2024. They included one controversial catchphrase without first obtaining clearance from Nixi Body.
The war started in February 2023. That’s when Sweaty Betty approached Kelly Newton, the founder of Nixi Body, seeking permission to use some of the campaign slogans. Newton was on board, and Sweaty Betty paid her £3,500 for the exclusive use of the slogans. This Creative Commons Commercial Plea Nixi Body believes that Sweaty Betty has not respected the ownership of creative. They claim that Sweaty Betty has been using identical taglines in their campaigns and taking proper attribution.
In 2024, Sweaty Betty initiated a campaign that included the line “No ifs,” which echoed phrases previously used by Nixi Body. The latter had advertised its products with slogans such as “Keeping you moving through menstruation, motherhood and menopause” and “No leaks.” Sweaty Betty’s marketing for its femtech range included the tagline “Keeping you moving through menstruation, maternity and menopause,” which raised eyebrows among industry observers.
Personal trainer Georgina Cox hasn’t been shy about calling out the harmful trend either. When she told Sweaty Betty she wanted £4,000, they agreed. In exchange, though, they asked her not to disclose that she still, shhh, has them Wear The Damn Shorts. Cox was understandably upset that Sweaty Betty adopted her slogan without proper attribution. This recent incident raises more serious questions about the protection of intellectual property rights in the fiercely competitive atmosphere between women’s fitness brands.
That debate has sparked a greater conversation about the ethical obligations larger brands owe to smaller businesses and contractors. Kelly Newton has had the audacity to say that Sweaty Betty is “taking from” other women founders. In addition, she has brought national attention to the urgent need for accountability in these cases. In a recent interview, she shared her frustration. Smaller brands can have a hard time getting noticed and supported in a race largely run by the big guys.
In response to the lawsuit, a representative for Sweaty Betty shot back that the company is committed to empowering women through fitness. Third, they emphasized that the words they use are acts of brand-building. The spokesperson argued that these kinds of overlaps are fairly common in advertising and not cause for plagiarism.
This current fight over music use in fitness brings up bigger issues of originality and collaboration in the fitness and wellness industries. As industries evolve and more brands emerge, the lines between inspiration and imitation may blur, leading to conflicts like this one.
Consumers are increasingly wise to the ethical branding concept. Both companies should expect to be under a very strong microscope as a consequence. Increasingly, consumers want more transparency and accountability from the brands they invest in, especially those that purport to be leaders in women’s empowerment.
Sweaty Betty’s actions could have broader implications for how companies engage with one another in terms of idea sharing and collaboration. Depending on the final outcome of this dispute, it could dictate the direction of future partnerships between traditional and upstart brands within the booming fitness sector.