If it please the Court
BOMB: Well, it wasn?t exactly a happy first day of Spring for the folks at Nickent, now was it? Yesterday TaylorMade filed a suit in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego seeking "preliminary and permanent injunctive relief for (a) false advertising, and (b) unfair competition, and demand for a jury trial."
According to the complaint which I am reading right now, the issue stems from claims made by Nickent in ads that ran in Golf Magazine and on The Golf Channel, along with those made on Nickent?s website claiming in various ways that their drivers are the hottest on tour or that Nickent has the No. 1 driver model on the 2008 Nationwide Tour. The suit notes that the claims essentially use a pair of early-season Nationwide Tour events as the basis of their claims.
But cutting through all the legalities of this, here?s my take: whether or not Nickent is on sound legal ground here is almost beside the point. If you?re the No. 1 driver model or brand at a specific Nationwide Tour event, why can?t you simply tout that in your ads rather than try to cloak it in fancy wording that attempts to make it sound like more than it really is. I don?t care if you use an asterisk and run a fine-print disclaimer at the bottom of the page?it?s simply wrong to try to make the consumer think it?s something other than it is. Message to all who partake in this kind of activity: Clean up your act.
GOUGE: Sorry, friend, but golf equipment has increasingly become a spin-off of Divorce Court. It's all about the lawyers anymore. Just see the Callaway-Titleist dispute over the Pro V1. Or maybe the Ogio-Callaway lawsuit over golf bags. (Golf bags?!) Or the fact that our friend David Dawsey actually has an entire website devoted to golf patents and golf patent litigation.
It's an ugly business further fragmented by an agency, the U.S. Patent Trademark Office, that is thoroughly outmanned (as anyone would be) when it comes to understanding and adjudicating the intricacies of golf equipment technology. Golf patent applications dwarf those in other sports. Which is interesting, admirable and, of course, a recipe for nightmares in the legal system. We all know who wins (lawyers), but the real losers are consumers, who may end up so confused and angry that they stop believing any claims, assuming everybody is lying. How does that help an industry that's already struggling to attract new players? (I tell you one thing: A truckload of legal issues do little to help the game reach toward affordability.)
Golf's legal morass is a turf war played in a muck-filled swamp. And that's not even getting to legitimate questions of intellectual property rights. This TaylorMade-Nickent thing is just stupid infighting taken public. Here's how it needs to be resolved. TaylorMade makes a phone call to Nickent, saying please stop, what you're saying is misleading (at best). Then Nickent acknowledges the error of its ways and moves on. It's supposed to be a game of honor, last I checked. Unfortunately, now it's no more sophisticated than two rabid, starved dogs fighting over a bone.
Golf manufacturing is smoke and mirrors in general. How is it that this years $500 driver is better than last years $500 driver... the cosmetics? The sound dampening? The Kevlar coating that reduces the amount of sting on a miss-hit?
The fact that TaylorMade is going after Nickent is a joke. Look at their ads they run. They have all these bags that line what looks to be a par 5 from tee to green, with the ones only visible from the shot with names on it. Now, they do play TaylorMades, but what about the rest? If they really DO put that many in play, why don't they just write out a list?
Most of this is just posturing. No one likes their (real or perceived) crown being threatened. Besides, this might work out for us and Nickent. If Taylormade wins, maybe we'll see a drop in Nickents prices, meaning more of us "Average Joes" can actually afford the newest clubs. Then Nickent can really claim to sell the most clubs.
1. The U.S. Patent Office has nothing to do with this case. And that agency doesn't "adjudicate" anything like what you're talking about. Courts adjudicate the issues in this case and claims of patent infringement.
2. I think we would all benefit from pointing a powerful microscope at golf equipment advertising and marketing. For one, I am getting pretty sick of hearing that the clubs on the rack at the local Golf Galaxy are the same clubs played by PGA Tour players. They aren't. Period. That's like saying that the Chevy Impala sitting on the dealers lot down the street is the same car Dale Earnhardt Jr. drives on the track.