No.22 Bicycles, the makers of high-end titanium bikes, has initiated legal action against an alleged imitator and is warning the public about fraudulent products being sold under its branding.
Founded in 2012, No.22 Bicycles has built a strong reputation for crafting high-performance titanium bicycles with a focus on innovative features and unique finishes. In 2019, the New York-based company expanded into carbon components with the launch of No. 6 Composites, a sub-brand dedicated to manufacturing carbon forks tailored specifically to the needs of custom frame builders. No.6 forks are used not only by No.22 but also by bike builders such as Baum, Equilibrium, Firefly and English Cycles.
Currently, No.6 Composites only sells carbon forks, but a quick online search reveals carbon wheels with similar No.6 branding.
No.22 explained that in January 2024, it restructured its dealer network and ended its long-standing partnership with Ken Goh of the Shanghai-based RideNow Cycle Club. Shortly after the termination, Goh allegedly launched his own “No.6” brand, adopting a similar logo to No.6 Composites, and applied for trademark registrations worldwide.
No.22 is contesting these trademarks and has filed a Notice of Opposition in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, objecting to Ken Goh’s use of the No. 6 mark on multiple grounds, claiming fraud, non-ownership and likelihood of confusion. Cycling Weekly is told that No.22 intends to take similar action in other markets where Ken Goh is using the No.6 mark.
“We have consistently aimed to operate with the utmost integrity in all our interactions with customers, suppliers, and the framebuilder community. This integrity includes ensuring that our customers know exactly whom they are dealing with when purchasing a No.22 bike or a No.6 carbon component,” stated Mike Smith, co-founder of No.22 Bicycles and No.6 Composites.
“Intentionally imitating the name and branding of No.6 as a shortcut to launching a knockoff wheel brand disrespects customers, creates confusion in the marketplace, and harms both consumers and the industry.”
Beyond using the same name, No.22 claims that the wheels are merely rebranded and marked-up Farsports wheels.
"We have had a great relationship with Farsports over the years and often spec their wheels on our bikes. When we learned about the [other] No.6 brand, we reached out to our contact at Farsports, who confirmed that the rims are indeed theirs." Smith said. "But Farsports told us they are not involved with the branding or putting the (...) logos on the wheels.”
On his website, Goh presents his No.6 brand as a premium cycling company committed to “engineering cycling’s most progressively designed wheels—crafted for the discerning athlete who demands nothing but the best.”
The brand was founded in 2023, operates out of Singapore, Shanghai and Xiamen, and boasts a worldwide customer base. It currently offers four models for road and gravel cycling, starting at $1,540. Goh told Cycling Weekly that he registered the brand in 2023 after ensuring it wasn't already owned.
"We are the rightful owners of No.6 trademark across the world," Goh assured.
"We have no idea of their No.6 Composite despite being No.22 dealer briefly in China. Our brand No.6 do not make forks and do not copy any of their designs [sic]. As you can see, we are developing high-quality carbon racing wheels with progressive designs, nothing of our concept is 'copying' anyone."
When Cycling Weekly reviewed national and international trademark registries, it found that both Ken Goh and No.22 applied for trademark registration in 2024, with a four-month gap between filings. The status remains pending for both parties.
Branding disputes are nothing new in the bike industry. Just a few months ago, Factor Bikes sparked some controversy after launching the "OSTRO VAM Scarab," a name that quickly drew criticism for its resemblance to Colombian custom frame builder Scarab Cycles. The Colombian brand took issue with the similarities in branding and responded by sending Factor a cease and desist letter over the use of the Scarab name and logo.
This is an ongoing story. We will report any further developments as they unfold.
