We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Cleveland sues Callaway, claiming trademark

Should be interesting to see how Callaway responds to the Smart Square putter, even though it's COMPLETELY different.
 
Hmm interesting. Wondering how this will turn out, seeing as it is his last name. And it's not like they have just Cleveland on there.
 
I saw this last week. Very interesting indeed.

It is what it is but I can see Cleveland's issue with it.
 
I could see it where it could cause in issue. I bet the average consumer would not know that the "Mack Daddy 2 Designed by Roger Cleveland" and the "Cleveland 588" wedges were made by different golf companies. The consumer probably would think the Cleveland 588's are made by Callaway as well
 
#Cookie said:
I saw this last week. Very interesting indeed.

It is what it is but I can see Cleveland's issue with it.
Click to expand...
No doubt.

Have to wonder when a name stops being a brand and becomes a name again.

Did that make sense?
 
War Eagle said:
No doubt.

Have to wonder when a name stops being a brand and becomes a name again.

Did that make sense?
Click to expand...

Complete sense. Sure it's in the fine print with the agreement when he left there.
 
War Eagle said:
Should be interesting to see how Callaway responds to the Smart Square putter, even though it's COMPLETELY different.
Click to expand...

Cleveland comparing the two says the opposite.

It will be interesting to see how this works out. I don't know how they could restrict roger from using his own name if there isn't a none compete or similar in place.
 
I'm sure Callaway was prepared for this, otherwise, they wouldn't have put his name on a wedge after 15 years. I'd wager this gets some sort of compensatory settlement. We'll see what kind of royalty or licensing fee they'll start paying Cleveland, if that's what it comes to.
 
This could open up a can of worms. War brings up a good point with the putters. Of course, squares and circles are completely different........ :alien:
 
Wake said:
Cleveland comparing the two says the opposite.

It will be interesting to see how this works out. I don't know how they could restrict roger from using his own name if there isn't a none compete or similar in place.
Click to expand...

They didn't put 2-ball on the putter. Totally different IMO.
 
Jman said:
They didn't put 2-ball on the putter. Totally different IMO.
Click to expand...

A good lawyer would be able to raise the issue of confusion.
 
Jman said:
They didn't put 2-ball on the putter. Totally different IMO.
Click to expand...
No, they didnt, however when it comes to litigation like this, they can claim infringement on design (See; Apple vs Samsung) just to see if something can stick or to get the other side to drop their lawsuit.
 
I'll have to following along with this one, "different" than most of the suits you see them claiming copyright infringement on hard goods or a concept
 
If people want to bring up a putter, they should check to see who has the patent on said putter and the history behind it.
 
JB said:
If people want to bring up a putter, they should check to see who has the copyright on said putter.
Click to expand...

Interesting...
 
War Eagle said:
Interesting...
Click to expand...

Callaway licensed the product from the patent holder Dave Pelz of both the 2 ball and 3 ball putters.

EDIT: Since that time there have been countless putters featuring the same style. Just like the Anser, and just about every other putter that was popular.
 
Cleveland sues Callaway, claiming trademark

War Eagle said:
Interesting...
Click to expand...

I agree with this sentiment...

Nevermind, I see above, that IS interesting!
 
JB said:
Callaway licensed the product from the patent holder Dave Pelz of both the 2 ball and 3 ball putters.
Click to expand...

I was going to say, I thought Pelz had the patent on that. I remember reading about it when it first came out
 
You have to know, as we have people in my company that is all the do is check patent and TM. Someone the size of Callaway I can only imagine and has to have the lawyers sign off before the name happens. But as in todays world who knows what some judge or lawyer will come up with.
 
Pelz owns that patent? Wow was not aware. CHA CHING!
 
Very interesting, but I would be surprised if Callaway didn't have their ducks in a row already in case of something like this. With how a design and name can be worth so much in the golf industry I would think they would have a department dedicated to making sure that sort of stuff is up to snuff.
 
I don't see this going anywhere. The name "Cleveland Golf" is what is trademarked. That doesn't preclude him from signing his name Roger Cleveland to a product. Plenty of precedence has been set for this as well. Domino's Pizza was sued by Domino's sugar years and years ago on the exact same principle and the only people that got rich was the lawyers. Needless to say, Domino's pizza didn't have to change their name. This just sounds like sour grapes to me, more than anything else. We'll see where it goes though, common sense doesn't always win, and it seldom applies once you get an attorney involved, (sorry manlai and philly!!, You know I like you two. You're two of the GOOD, FRIENDLY, lawyers, LOL).
 
Well, if people haven't heard about the MD2 wedges before then they will now.

#CantWeAllJustGetAlong
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top