Woods-McIlroy League’s ‘LA Golf’ Fight Probes Weak IP Rights

Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy’s new indoor golf league is fighting a last-minute trademark threat to its Los Angeles team, arguing an equipment company’s protection is weak and consumers won’t be confused by the distinction between a sports team and putters.

LA Golf Partners LLC sent a legal threat that wrongly claimed the league “blatantly” infringes its rights, TGL Golf Holdings LLC said in its lawsuit seeking a declaration of noninfringement. The complaint said the equipment brand’s application to register “LA Golf Club” was rejected because it was deemed geographically descriptive and it never used the full mark.

The case is likely to turn on the degree to which the parties’ marks are descriptive—merely describing the product or its attributes without serving as a source-identifier—and not enforceable without some secondary meaning to consumers. Even then, the highly descriptive nature of the equipment company’s “LA Golf” and “LA Golf Club” trademarks result in thin protection that makes it more difficult to block the team’s use, trademark attorneys said.

“Clients in marketing departments love descriptive marks. We as lawyers are constantly fighting the battle to explain” the downside, Jennifer A. Van Kirk of Womble Bond Dickinson said. “If another mark comes too close for comfort, you are going to have to live with it.”

LA Golf Partners could file counterclaims for infringement, seeking damages or an injunction. But those claims would likely be undermined by the months of silence before their threat to sue, attorneys said. The company’s letter threatening litigation came more than eight months after the parties’ last contact—and just days before the league’s highly publicized Jan. 7 launch on ESPN.

Eric T. Fingerhut of Dykema Gossett PLLC said the likely motivation behind the demand letter was financial—an assertion TGL made in its complaint accusing the company of “bad faith intent” to disrupt the league’s launch.

“There’s a part of me that thinks the court is going to see this as a last-minute desperate attempt to get a payday,” Fingerhut said. “They’re going to see this as a hold-up.”

But the parties are asserting similar marks and infringement is a fact-intensive determination, so litigation would likely at least reach discovery if not a jury trial, Aaron Moss of Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP said.

“Obviously it makes it a really expensive undertaking if they’re not able to settle,” Moss said. “The tendency is not to dismiss these cases.”

LA Golf Partners didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Dueling Applications

LA Golf Partners, the equipment company founded in 2018 and owned by private investing firm Kaulig Capital, registered a “LAGP” design, and a US Patent and Trademark Office examiner approved its “LA Golf” word mark to move forward in January 2023.

The league’s LA Golf Club Inc. applied for “LAGC” trademarks on June 7, 2023, and announced the Los Angeles team a day later. LA Golf applied to register “LA Golf Club” a week later, claiming first use in May 2022.

The league’s “LAGC” trademark and an application for an “LA” graphic with a golf club secured approval from examiners to proceed toward registration. But in September a trademark examiner suspended two other league design mark applications pending the outcomes of the equipment company’s applications.

The PTO refused to let LA Golf Partners’ register “LA Golf Club” on the principal register because it was “geographically descriptive,” meaning it must become distinctive to consumers to be valid. The company pivoted and added it to the supplemental register, which can block registration of similar descriptive marks but isn’t as useful in litigation.

“The supplemental register is great for putting a circled ‘R’ in a demand letter if you’re dealing with someone who’s not sophisticated, but it doesn’t carry any presumption of validity,” Moss said.

Descriptive marks that acquire distinctivenesss can become strong—American Airlines, for example—but that requires substantial investment, Catherine M.C. Farrelly of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC said.

But the existence of entities like Los Angeles Country Club, which owns registrations on its logos, presents another hurdle to LA Golf Partners showing its trademarks acquired distinctiveness, Fingerhut said.

Even if the $50 million the company spent developing a brand and the use of its equipment by professional golfers—both of which it claimed in its demand letter—led to distinctiveness, that might not help, Fingerhut said. A registration for golf clubs doesn’t necessarily equate to protection against a team name.

Moss said a stronger mark would have a better shot at being perceived as related.

“Strength of the mark is going to drive the outcome,” he said.

The equipment company argued to the PTO consumers wouldn’t widely perceive “LA” as referring to Los Angeles, suggesting LA can mean “Latin America, Louisiana, Limited Access, Long Acting, and Library Association.” It also suggested LA Golf isn’t located in Los Angeles but in Anaheim—which, like namesakes of its “Malibu” and “Bel Air” putter models, is within the Los Angeles metro area.

“When I read those arguments I was laughing,” Farrelly said, noting they also pointed out LA is the symbol for the element lanthanum. “It’s not a very interesting trademark, but it’s an interesting set of facts.”

‘Aggressive’ Move

LA Golf Partners’ October 2023 letter first formally raised concerns. The last communication between the parties’ counsel occurred April 26, and TGL said it didn’t hear from LA Golf again until it threatened litigation on Jan. 3.

Moss called that letter “aggressive"—a tactic he’s often seen backfire. In cases an attorney is requested to send such a letter by a client that doesn’t actually want to sue, he said, but threatening litigation opens the door to it.

“People who otherwise wouldn’t have litigated feel backed into a corner and feel that because their back’s against the wall they need to fight,” he said.

The case is: TGL Golf Holdings LLC v. LA Golf Partners LLC,, D. Del., Docket No. 1:25-cv-00011.