Proceeding no.
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`ESTTA1380997
`09/02/2024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92084320
`
`Defendant
`David Barton Consulting, Inc.
`
`ANDREW J. OLEK
`LIPPES MATHIAS LLP
`50 FOUNTAIN PLAZA
`SUITE 1700
`BUFFALO, NY 14202
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: aolek@lippes.com
`716-853-5100
`Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)
`
`Andrew J. Olek
`
`aolek@lippes.com
`
`/AJO/
`
`09/02/2024
`
`Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint LBN.pdf(211288 bytes )
`Exhibit A1.pdf(4206190 bytes )
`Exhibit A2.pdf(2920800 bytes )
`Exhibit A3.pdf(3544384 bytes )
`Exhibit A4.pdf(4759410 bytes )
`Exhibit A5.pdf(1480017 bytes )
`Exhibit A6.pdf(6061015 bytes )
`Exhibit A7.pdf(2648543 bytes )
`Ex B - Affidavit Barton.pdf(558403 bytes )
`Ex C - Affirmation of Shanahan.pdf(110698 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92084320
`
`Registration No. 7032113
`Mark: LOOK BETTER NAKED
`
`
`
`
`TOWN SPORTS GROUP, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVID BARTON CONSULTING, INC.,
`
`Respondent.
`
`
`DAVID BARTON CONSULTING, INC.’S MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN
`SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED CANCELLATION PETITION
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER RULE 12(b)(6)
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Respondent David Barton Consulting, Inc. (“DBC”), through its undersigned attorney,
`
`respectfully requests dismissal with prejudice of the amended petition for cancellation (“Petition”)
`
`filed by Petitioner Town Sports Group, LLC (“Town”) because the Petition fails to state a claim
`
`for relief under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically, Town fails to
`
`allege facts sufficient to support a plausible claim for which relief can be granted as to fraud or
`
`abandonment.
`
`
`
`Town seeks to cancel U.S. Registration No. 7032113 for the mark “LOOK BETTER
`
`NAKED” in connection with “personal fitness training services, physical fitness training services;
`
`health clubs for physical exercise; health club services, namely, providing instruction and
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`equipment in the field of physical exercise” and “hats and activewear, namely, t-shirts, shorts and
`
`pullovers” in International Classes 041 and 025, respectively (the “Registered Mark”).
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`David Barton created and as utilized in commerce “LOOK BETTER NAKED” since at
`
`least June of 1992, through entities of which he is the majority owner or individually. While Mr.
`
`Barton or his entities may have undergone reorganizations, facts are clear that (i) Mr. Barton never
`
`abandoned use of LOOK BETTER NAKED, (ii) other than the infringing use by Town, all use of
`
`LOOK BETTER NAKED since 1992 was by and for the benefit of entities owned and/or
`
`controlled by Mr. Barton, and (iii) Town never acquired any interest in LOOK BETTER NAKED.
`
`FACTS
`
`
`
`Eastern Gymnasiums, L.P. filed a trademark application for “Look Better Naked” for Class
`
`025 on September 19, 1996, and claimed a date of first use of June 1, 1992 (the “1992
`
`Registration”). The 1992 Registration registered on August 5, 1997.
`
`
`
`The 1992 Registration was assigned to DB 85 Gym Corp., an entity owned by Mr. Barton,
`
`through an assignment with an effective date of December 20, 1996 (this assignment was recorded
`
`with the USPTO on January 7, 2004). The 1992 Registration was renewed on July 27, 2007.
`
`
`
`Mr. Barton incorporated DBC on September 28, 2017. DBC submitted the application for
`
`the Registered Mark on August 11, 2021.
`
`
`
`Despite the bankruptcy proceedings referenced in the Petition (15 TTABVUE 4-5), the
`
`media articles attached as Exhibit A, which publication dates span from 1994 through 2023 (and
`
`include articles from 2018), demonstrate continuous use of LOOK BETTER NAKED by Mr.
`
`Barton or entities owned by Mr. Barton, as does the affidavit of Mr. Barton, attached hereto as
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Exhibit B and affirmation of Thomas D. Shanahan, Esq. (Mr. Barton’s longtime attorney), attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`
`
`Neither Town, nor any of its predecessors had or have any rights in the mark LOOK
`
`BETTER NAKED. Town has presented no evidence to the contrary, other than the fact that it filed
`
`a trademark application seeking to register “Look Better Naked” on February 27, 2023 (the “Town
`
`Application”) – over two years after DBC, through its counsel sent its first cease and desist letter,
`
`which Town attached to its Petition (see 15 TTABVUE – Exhibit B).
`
`The facts are clear that neither Town nor its predecessors had or have any rights to “Look
`
`Better Naked” and the Petition and cancellation proceeding are Town’s attempt to interfere with
`
`DBC’s business operations as retribution for long-standing contention between the parties, which
`
`has resulted in years of litigation.
`
`Town can produce no record of ownership of “Look Better Naked” – in fact, the specimen
`
`it submitted with the Town Application to allege use of “Look Better Naked” shows only an
`
`illuminated sign hanging on an unidentifiable wall – contrast this use with Mr. Barton’s continuous
`
`use demonstrated by the articles attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the specimens that have been
`
`submitted to and accepted by the USPTO in connection with the Registered Mark.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`A cancellation petition is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) when the petition fails
`
`to establish that a valid ground exists to cancel the registration. See TBMP § 503.02 (citing Lipton
`
`Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1981)). The Board reviews a motion
`
`to dismiss by assuming all well-pleaded allegations in the Petition are true and construing these
`
`allegations in a light most favorable to the petitioner. Consolidated Foods Corp. v. Big Red, Inc.,
`
`226 U.S.P.Q. 829, 831 (T.T.A.B. 1985).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain a “short and plain statement of the
`
`claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Further, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires more
`
`than labels, conclusions, formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action, and naked
`
`assertions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint, or in the instant matter, a
`
`petition, “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
`
`plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
`
`See also, TBMP § 309.03(a)(2) (2024).
`
`
`
`This plausibility standard applies in “all civil actions,” including proceedings before the
`
`Board. See TBMP § 503.03 (citing Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1953); see also Zoba Int'l Corp. v. DVD
`
`Format / LOGO Licensing Corp., Cancellation No. 92051821, 2011 TTAB LEXIS 64 (T.T.A.B.
`
`Mar. 10, 2011) (granting motion to dismiss a fraud claim under the Twombly and Iqbal plausibility
`
`standard). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion allows the Board “to eliminate actions that are fatally flawed in
`
`their legal premises and destined to fail, and thus to spare litigants the burdens of unnecessary
`
`pretrial and trial activity.” Advanced Cardiovascular Systems Inc. v. SciMed Life Systems Inc.,
`
`988 F.2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Kelly Services, Inc. v. Greene’s Temporaries, Inc.,
`
`25 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1460 (T.T.A.B. 1992) (dismissing a cancellation action under Rule 12(b)(6) when
`
`facts did not support statutory grounds for cancellation).
`
`
`
`Whether Town’s Petition states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific inquire that
`
`requires the Board to draw on its “experience and common sense” to determine if alleged facts
`
`“infer more than a mere possibility” that fraud or abandonment occurred. See Iqbal, S. Ct. at 1950-
`
`51.
`
`
`
`A. The Petition fails to prove that Application for the Registered Mark Was Not Filed
`
`By the Rightful Owner.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Let it be stated that the Petition is in many paragraphs and allegations is confusing and
`
`unclear; in particular, it is unclear what exactly Town is alleging in Count I of its Petition (15
`
`TTABVUE 6). Town’s first allegation in Count I (15 TTABVUE 6-7) appears to claim that DBC
`
`is not the rightful owner of the Registered Mark and “did not maintain control” over the goods and
`
`services associated with the application for the Registered Mark at the time the application was
`
`submitted. 15 TTABVUE 6-7. Amazingly, Town then argues that it maintained control over the
`
`goods and services associated with Class 041 of the application as to the Registered Mark. 15
`
`TTABVUE 6. This is baffling because the Petition presents no evidence to demonstrate when or
`
`how Town acquired the rights to “Look Better Naked.”
`
`The following allegation from the Petition makes inaccurate statements and allegations
`
`without evidence to support any of such allegations:
`
`Upon information and belief, the ‘006 Application [application for the
`Registered Mark] was filed in the name of an entity that was not using the
`LOOK BETTER NAKED mark in commerce at the date of first use alleged,
`and that is not the predecessor in interest of Registrant, and as such, the
`Application was not filed in the name of the rightful owner. 15 TTABVUE
`7.
`
`
`The Registered Mark certifies a date of first use of June 1992, and it is true that use in June
`
`of 1992 was not by DBC (the applicant for the Registered Mark / current owner of the Registered
`
`Mark). However, as stated above Mr. Barton was and has been the owner or controlling party of
`
`any entity that has or is validly using LOOK BETTER NAKED in commerce (obviously, Mr.
`
`Barton has never had any ownership or control in Town, but Town has never had any valid
`
`ownership rights in LOOK BETTER NAKED or right to use LOOK BETTER NAKED).
`
`Mr. Barton, through the various entities that he has owned or controlled, has continuously
`
`used LOOK BETTER NAKED since June of 1992. Moreover, temporary nonuse due to a business
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`sale or other business-related decision is permissible and does not constitute abandonment. See
`
`TMEP § 1604.11.
`
`DBC is a successor in interest to the LOOK BETTER NAKED mark, including all
`
`goodwill associated with use of LOOK BETTER NAKED that has accrued since June 1992. Town
`
`presents only unsupported statements in its attempt to claim it (Town) is the rightful owner of the
`
`LOOK BETTER NAKED mark. Count I must be dismissed because it merely contains “naked
`
`assertions” and does not contain “sufficient factual matter […] to ‘state a claim to relief that is
`
`plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft at 678 [quoting citation omitted].
`
`B. The Petition Fails to Prove Lack of Continued and Uninterrupted Use in
`
`Commerce.
`
`Again, Count II of the Petition (15 TTABVUE 7-9) is somewhat unclear as to Town’s
`
`allegations, but DBC assumes that Town is attempting to allege abandonment.
`
`To prove trademark abandonment, the party alleging abandonment must show that the
`
`owner of the mark (i) discontinued use of such Mark, and (ii) does not intend to resume use of the
`
`mark in the reasonably foreseeable future (see 15 U.S.C. § 1127; Cross Com. Media, Inc. v.
`
`Collective, Inc., 841 F.3d 155, 169 (2d Cir. 2016); ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc., 482 F.3d 135, 147
`
`(2d Cir. 2007)).
`
`Use of a mark to avoid an abandonment finding is use that is sufficient to maintain the
`
`public’s association between the mark and its owner (see Silverman v. CBS, Inc., 870 F.2d 40, 48
`
`(2d Cir. 1989); Pado, Inc. v. SG Trademark Holding Co., 527 F. Supp. 3d 332, 341-42 (E.D.N.Y.
`
`2021)).
`
`Registrations are presumed valid under the law, a party seeking to cancel a registration on
`
`the ground of abandonment bears the burden of proof to establish its case by a preponderance of
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`the evidence. On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1471,
`
`1476 (Fed. Cir. 2000). At trial, if a petitioner makes a prima facie case of abandonment, the burden
`
`of production, i.e., of going forward, then shifts to the respondent to rebut the prima facie showing
`
`with evidence. Id. “The burden of persuasion remains with the plaintiff to prove abandonment by
`
`a preponderance of the evidence.” ShutEmDown Sports Inc. v. Lacy, 102 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1036, at
`
`1042 (TTAB 2012).
`
`While nonuse of a mark for three consecutive years, is prima facie evidence of
`
`abandonment, such presumption is rebuttable (see ITC, 482 F.3d at 147). The Petition alleges that
`
`Mr. Barton did not use “Look Better Naked” for three consecutive years (specifically during a
`
`“Non-Use Period” defined as “at least 2016 through mid-2024” (15 TTABVUE 8); however, the
`
`article titled “New York’s Cathedral of Sweat” dated August 8, 2018 (included in Exhibit A) rebuts
`
`this presumption, and also demonstrates that Mr. Barton, even if assuming arguendo he had
`
`temporarily stopped using “Look Better Naked” never indented to not resume using “Look Better
`
`Naked.” Town cannot meet the two prong test set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1127 to prove that Mr.
`
`Barton abandoned the “Look Better Naked” mark.
`
`The Petition references bankruptcies but these references and purported screenshots
`
`included in the Petition fail to demonstrate that Mr. Barton did not intend to resume use of “Look
`
`Better Naked” – assuming arguendo he temporarily ceased use, or that the rights to LOOK
`
`BETTER NAKED were transferred to a third-party that was not owned or controlled by Mr.
`
`Barton.
`
`“Intent to resume use in abandonment cases has been equated with a showing of special
`
`circumstances that excuse nonuse.” Exec. Coach Builders, Inc. v. SPV Coach Co., 123 U.S.P.Q.
`
`2d 1175, 1189 (TTAB 2017). “If a mark owner's nonuse is excusable, it has overcome the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`presumption that its nonuse was coupled with an intent not to resume use.” Exec. Coach Builders
`
`at 1189. The TTAB has found excusable nonuse where a mark owner was sanctioned and
`
`prohibited from offering the goods associated with its mark for a period of time. Arsa Distributing,
`
`Inc. v. Salud Natural Mexicana S.A. DE C.V., 2022 WL 4592443, *10, 15 (T.T.A.B. 2022)
`
`(precedential). The articles attached hereto as Exhibit A evidence Mr. Barton’s continued
`
`promotion of his LOOK BETTER NAKED mark (or his intent to resume use of LOOK BETTER
`
`NAKED in connection with the goods and services associated with Class 025 and Class 041).
`
`A party seeking to rebut an abandonment claim “must put forth evidence with respect to
`
`what activities it engaged in during the nonuse period or what outside events occurred from which
`
`an intent to resume use during the nonuse period may reasonably be inferred.” See Imperial
`
`Tobacco Ltd. v. Philip Morris Inc., 899 F.2d 1575, 14 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1390, 1395 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
`
`see also, Double Coin Holdings Ltd. v. Tru Dev., 2019 U.S.P.Q. 2d 377409, at *15 (TTAB 2019);
`
`Yazhong Investing Ltd. v. Multi-Media Tech Ventures, Ltd., 126 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1526, 1538 (TTAB
`
`2018). The TTAB may consider evidence regarding activities that occurred before or after the
`
`three-year period of nonuse to infer intent to resume use during the three-year period (Exec. Coach
`
`Builders at 1199). Mr. Barton’s and DBC’s actions demonstrate that Mr. Barton never intended to
`
`abandon the LOOK BETTER NAKED mark.
`
`Town does not allege with sufficient clarity critical matter, namely, the date and period of
`
`nonuse, that is, use of the mark for the goods and services that has been discontinued or ceased.
`
`Nor does Town allege intent not to resume use of the mark for the goods and services or no intent
`
`to resume use of the mark for the goods and services with sufficiency and particularity. The Petition
`
`is deficient, as Town does not provide fair notice of the factual basis for its claim. Therefore, with
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`respect to Count II of the Petition, Town fails to state a claim, and DBC’s motion to dismiss should
`
`be granted.
`
`C. The Petition Does Not State a Clear and Convincing Claim Proving Fraud.
`
`
`
`When a party asserts fraud on the USPTO, the party must show that the mark owner
`
`knowingly made a false and material fact representation with an intent to mislead the USPTO
`
`(Covertech Fabricating, Inc. v. TVM Bldg. Prods., Inc., 855 F.3d 163, 174-75 (3d Cir. 2017); MPC
`
`Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino, 826 F.3d 653, 658 (2d Cir. 2016); In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240,
`
`1243 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).The party alleging fraud on the USPTO bears a heavy burden of proof and
`
`must prove the elements of fraud with clear and convincing evidence (Bose, 580 F.3d at 1243
`
`(stating that fraud must be “proven to the hilt” and may not be based on speculation); A.V.E.L.A.,
`
`Inc. v. Estate of Marilyn Monroe, LLC, 241 F. Supp. 3d 461, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (stating that
`
`proof of fraud must leave nothing to speculation, conjecture, or surmise)).
`
`
`
`“Where a registered mark or a mark sought to be registered is or may be used legitimately
`
`by related companies, such use shall inure to the benefit of the registrant or applicant for
`
`registration, and such use shall not affect the validity of such mark or of its registration, provided
`
`such mark is not used in such manner as to deceive the public. If first use of a mark by a person is
`
`controlled by the registrant or applicant for registration of the mark with respect to the nature and
`
`quality of the goods or services, such first use shall inure to the benefit of the registrant or applicant,
`
`as the case may be” (15 U.S. Code § 1055).
`
`
`
`Mr. Barton through his various entities continuously used “Look Better Naked” in
`
`commerce (see Exhibit A) and believed the rights of those prior entities inured for the benefit of
`
`DBC when the statement of use for the Registered Mark was filed (see also, Exhibit B).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Town has not proven fraud “to the hilt” – rather, the Petition only speculates based upon
`
`limited screenshots purporting to be bankruptcy filings or dockets. 15 TTABVUE 4. Town purports
`
`to base its fraud claim on the June 1, 1992 date of first use cited by DBC when it submitted its
`
`statement of use in connection with the Registered Mark; however, such allegation (that DBC’s
`
`date of first use is incorrect) alone cannot form a basis for a fraud claim. Hiraga v. Arena, 90
`
`U.S.P.Q. 2d 1102, 1107 (TTAB 2009). See also Standard Knitting, Ltd. v. Toyota Jidosha
`
`Kabushiki Kaisha, 77 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1917, 1926 (TTAB 2006) (the claimed date of first use, even if
`
`false, does not constitute fraud because the first use date is not material to the Office's decision to
`
`approve a mark for publication); and Colt Industries Operating Corp. v. Olivetti Controllo
`
`Numerico S.p.A., 221 U.S.P.Q. 73, 76 (TTAB 1983) (“The [Trademark] Examining Attorney gives
`
`no consideration to alleged dates of first use in determining whether conflicting marks should be
`
`published for opposition.”).
`
`The Petition makes no reference to any sale or transfer of “Look Better Naked” to Town or
`
`its predecessors (or to any third-party not owned or controlled by Mr. Barton), nor does the Petition
`
`present any other evidence to demonstrate that Town or its predecessors own or ever acquired any
`
`rights in the mark “Look Better Naked.”
`
`Town does not provide fair notice of the factual matters that form the basis for a fraud
`
`claim. Therefore, DBC respectfully requests that DBC’s motion to dismiss Town’s fraud claim be
`
`granted.
`
`D. Granting Town Leave to Amend Would be Futile.
`
`
`
`The dismissal of Town’s Petition for failure to state a claim should be with prejudice. See
`
`TBMP § 503.03 (stating that the Board has discretion to deny a party the opportunity to amend the
`
`pleadings). The Petition’s utter absence of facts to establish a plausible claim for relief
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`demonstrates that allowing Town to amend its pleading would be futile (see American Hygienic
`
`Labs, Inc. v. Tiffany & Co., 228 U.S.P.Q. 855, 859 (TTAB 1986) (denying leave to amend when
`
`doing so would serve no useful purpose)).
`
`Town’s Petition, claiming damages wastes the Board’s time and resources merely to test a
`
`legal premise destined to fail because the Petition lacks factual allegations to support a plausible
`
`claim for relief.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the reasons stated above, David Barton Consulting, Inc. respectfully requests dismissal
`
`of the Petition with prejudice.
`
`Dated: September 2, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIPPES MATHIAS LLP
`
`/Andrew J. Olek/____________
`Andrew J. Olek
`50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1700
`Buffalo, New York 14202
`(716) 853-5100
`aolek@lippes.com
`Attorneys for Respondent
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of this Motion to Dismiss has been sent to
`
`Jean G. Vidal-Font, counsel of record for Petitioner, by forwarding said copy on September 2,
`
`2024 via email to:
`
`Jean G. Vidal-Font
`FERRAIUOLI LLC
`jvidal@ferraiuoli.com
`
`Buffalo, New York
`September 2, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/s/Andrew J. Olek
`Andrew J. Olek
`aolek@lippes.com
`
`Attorneys for David Barton Consulting, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`

`

`Current Issue
`
`About Us
`
`Contact
`
`Donate
`
` Newsletter
`
`Departments 
`
`Issues
`
`Services 
`
`Contact Us
`
`Training Redefined 
`
`Newsletter
`
`
`
`Home » New York’s Cathedral Of Sweat
`
`New York’s Cathedral Of Sweat
`
`Featured in:
`August / September 2015
`
`Latest Articles
`
`Training With
`Spring!
`Lisa Vasseur Jarvis
`22nd March, 2024
`
`How The
`‘Christian’
`Lifestyle Is Better
`Brad Bloom
`13th March, 2024
`
`3 Ways To Care For
`Your Heart
`Sherrell Moore-Tucker
`13th March, 2024
`
`Better Health,
`Deeper Faith –
`Anthony Vaccarella
`Martin Johnson
`22nd November, 2023
`
`Mmmm…arinated
`Goodness
`Anthony Jordan
`23rd September, 2023
`
`Do More With 6 Big
`Moves You Already
`Do
`Sam Barr
`10th May, 2023
`
`Contributors
`
`Anthony Tiller
`Arian Moore
`Ben Booker
`Brad Bloom
`Cody Sipe
`Coki Cruz
`Dino Nowak
`Emily Vavra
`Erik De La Rosa
`Humberto Toval
`Jason Rhymer
`Jonnie Goodmanson
`Katie Pearson
`Kelli Calabrese
`Kimberly Bloom
`Laurie Graves
`Mary Mack
`Michelle Spadafora
`Noah Nelson
`Ricky Van Pay
`Rob Killen
`Shawn Maves
`Tana Gabriel
`Troy Ismir
`
`Top tags
`
`Faith Discipleship
`
`Faith and fitness Fitness
`
`Devotional Parenting Family
`
`Exercise Father Family fitness
`
`Dad Fitness ministry Prayer
`
`Church Coach Mother
`
`Strength Fitfam Men
`
`Men's fitness Parents
`
`Troy Ismir Discipline
`
`Faith and fitness culture
`
`Strength coach Nutrition
`
`Perseverance Hope Grace
`
`Mom Trust Perspective
`
`Training Health
`
`Barbells and Brothers
`
`Men's Health Overcome Joy
`
`Intergenerational fitness
`
`Personal trainer Character
`
`YMCA Miracles Diet
`
`Spiritual Warrior Friendship
`
`Leadership Faithandfitness
`
`Sexual wellness
`
`Author: Brad Bloom
`
`Department(s): Church Fitness, Faith and
`Fitness Culture, Features
`
`Read time: 8 minutes
`
`Updated: August 9th, 2018
`
`The David Barton Gym Limelight known as the Cathedral Of Sweat may be New York’s most righteous (or totally
`awesome) gym. They’ve earned awards and recognition for their retrofit of this historic church building.  They
`foreshadow a look and feel that fitness ministries can have and where faith and fitness can be beautifully
`integrated into one fantastic experience.
`
`If you wanted to open a really cool gym that everyone would want to use, where would it be and how would you
`make it truly amazing?
`
`David Barton Gym took a historic Manhattan church built in 1845 and
`created a dynamic experience that preserves the architecture, integrates
`with the culture of the city and delivers quality, service and top-rated
`fitness programs. They set a good example (and price point) for the
`boutique model of fitness club.
`
`Churches and Christian entrepreneurs can do one better – if they’ll try.
`Beyond the look and feel, they can deliver Christian ministry. Visualize a
`place where you can get fit, get funk AND get faith.
`
`th
`The David Barton Gym Limelight at 20 and Sixth makes working out truly
`inspirational. The cardio suite has spectacular stained glass windows
`towering over the treadmills. The strength equipment helps you fire up your
`muscles in the glow of prayer candles. Even some of the group exercise
`classes are whimsically named: Muscle Mass, Core Communion, Divine Abs
`and Salvation.
`
` 
`
`Visual ize a pl ace where you can get f it , get f unk AND get f ait h.
`
` 
`
`In today’s culture “Muscle Worship” isn’t just a tongue-in-cheek
`expression. It is admiration fueled by hard work that can easily
`become a fitness and sexual addiction. Their imagery of
`muscles in a church – a temple in a temple, may at the very
`least challenge gym goers to consider how physical and
`spiritual beauty are more connected than we realize.  Their
`corporate slogan, “Look better naked” certainly captures your
`attention and the heart of their culture. However it ventures
`more closely into the more significant spiritual conversations of
`body worship and gymnos than they may realize – certainly
`more than they may address because their purpose is not to do
`ministry but rather simply be the best gym in the marketplace. They do a good job of that consistently getting
`rave reviews by media, members and visitors.
`
` 
`
`WHAT THE DAVID BARTON GYM HAS THAT CHURCH FITNESS
`MINISTRIES CAN HAVE TOO
`
`Quality equipment – From the free weights to the cardio
`suite every piece of equipment is carefully selected for
`durability, function and overall experience.  Great gyms
`maintain their equipment in clean and top performing
`condition. Because space in boutique gyms is often
`limited and unique, the amount of equipment along with
`where and how it is placed are all considerations to
`assure ready availability and continuity.
`
` 
`
`Professional and engaged staff – Facilities with great
`teams put great effort into carefully selecting who
`represents their brand. They then regularly invest in the ongoing training of staff. The results are obvious. They
`know what their doing, they do it very well AND the members consistently have an amazing experience, always
`coming back for more.
`
`Distinctive programming that delivers results – Gym
`goers want a place that will give them a tough workout.
`They want the intensity that makes a difference. They
`want the fun that will keep it highly engaging and
`rewarding. The development of faith and fitness
`programming is a process that examines wants, needs
`and deliverables that take the participants to obtain
`outcomes they can’t get from traditional programming.  
`
`Photo courtesy of Gina Doost of WhatTheDoost.com. Used by permission.
`
` 
`
`Overall ambiance and culture – Churches often create “third-place” environments like a coffee shop or
`bookstore. Gym’s like David Barton have designed facilities that people want to get to often and then thoroughly
`enjoy. They want a challenge, a conversation, instruction, affirmation, fun and engagement. These gym facilities
`wow you with their style and character and immerse you totally in an ethos of carefully crafted tradition,
`innovation and expression.
`
`A LOOK AT WHAT FITNESS MINISTRY CAN BE
`
`The next generat ion of
`
`f it ness f acil it y – a hybrid
`
`gym/ church combo.
`
`In every city across the
`country there are church
`buildings that are closing
`for many reasons: shifts
`in populations, older
`buildings being replaced
`by newer facilities,
`
`congregation consolidations and decline in attendance to name a few.
`
` 
`
`  A
`
` t empl e in a t empl e – consider how physical and spirit ual beaut y are connect ed.
`
`According to a ChurchLeadership.org article more than 4000 churches close each year.  That’s a lot of real
`estate that could be retrofitted into a gym facility. Certainly not every building is appropriate for becoming a
`fitness facility. However, the David Barton Gym Limelight shows that for some buildings it can be done – and
`done very well. AND for those buildings that either remain part of the church or are transferred to another
`Christian ministry owner the new gym in the existing real estate with it’s clear ministry purpose can operate as a
`non-profit and realize tax savings and scales of affordability provided for Christian ministries.
`
`What is needed to do this? Churches and Christian business professionals need to examine, understand and
`then literally build the next generation of fitness facility – a hybrid gym/church combo. The pattern of a boutique
`gym is already in place. Most certainly the model of simple church is well established from the early era of the
`Christian church – Christ’s disciples through to present-day small group gatherings.
`
`Tim Suttle, in his book Shrink and his Patheos article Why The Church Is In Decline… identifies that the mega-
`church model is a departure from the smaller (and more preferred) simple church model on which Christianity is
`originally founded:
`
`My tribe is the evangelicals. We’ve been the “industry leaders” in developing best practices for the
`realization of the relevant, the powerful, and the spectacular church. Like industrial farmers, we have
`been so successful that we have actually moved the dial for the mainstream church as well. We have
`filled the cities and suburbs with monuments to growth without limits. But we have pushed in the
`wrong direction, and we have pushed too far. We have confused the very nature of what it means to
`be a part of the people of God.
`
`A dif f erent f ut ure f or t he
`
`church – serving smal l
`
`congregat ions f ait hf ul l y.
`
` 
`
`There is a shift in the fitness
`industry from the membership
`model in favor of the smaller and more intimate experience:
`
` 
`
`Sensing that a growing number of people are forgoing their gym membership in favor of specialized
`experiences like boot camps or cycling studios, some gyms have begun partnering with smaller
`boutique studios, offering them temporary or permanent space and giving their customers access to
`the gym’s amenities. In exchange, gyms receive foot-traffic from the well-to-do clientele that
`boutique studios tend to attract and, in some cases, a cut of the studio’s revenue.
`
`Essentially, the mega-gym has discovered and in some instances is adapting to the reality that many people
`DON’T believe “bigger is better”. People want (and pay for), “the cutting-edge workouts and the attention of
`instructors who have built up personal brands through widely-followed Instagram accounts and best-selling DVD
`sets.” Bret Edward Stout a personal trainer at the David Barton Gym Limelight is a good example. The church can
`learn from this by putting much less emphasis on “membership” and giving much more attention to shepherding
`the small flock into spiritual maturity through faithful instruction and a deep koinonia-based fellowship.
`
`These 3 Photos and the top
`
`photo courtesy of Brett Edward
`
`Stout @brettestout on
`
`Instagram.
`
`Suttle describes what
`hopefully will be a
`growing trend, “Many
`church leaders are now
`faced with a fundamental disagreement about time and money and the use of the world. All around me everyday
`in my church and my city, I work with people who have chosen the way of descent. They labor in beautiful
`obscurity and have the audacity to imagine a church that depends upon God for its future. These friends forego
`lucrative careers and the perks of the upwardly mobile in order to serve small congregations faithfully. They are
`straining to imagine a different future for the church.”
`
`THE BEST BUILD-OUT EVER
`
`That future I believe can be expressed in part through the really cool gym model
`– a classic church facility that is designed to house quality fitness equipment,
`thoughtfully crafted spaces, inspiring ambiance and on-target programming. But
`what it houses isn’t what defines it as much as those who make it home. The
`relationships, the accountability, the honesty, the compassion, the grace and the
`joy in the celebration are all the qualities that make this style of gym not only
`cool but the environment that returns the meaning of church from being a place
`to being a group of committed people.
`
`We’re here to help you get this model of fitness ministry started. CONTACT US
`and get help with a retrofit that will bring the most righteous gym to your
`community.
`
`Cover photo of David Barton Gym Limelight exterior by Nikki Espinia for Faith & Fitness Magazine.
`
`   
`
`
`
`PREVIOUS
`
`NEXT
`
`Redefined – A Faith And Fitness Conference
`
`“Why am I a food addict?” The Spiritual, Emotional and Physical …
`
`
`
`Comments
`
`Leave a Reply
`
`Your email address will not be published. Requi