Equipment Brand LA Golf Partners LLC convinced a Delaware federal judge that a virtual golf league founded by Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy should have to fight over an “LA Golf Club” trademark in California federal court.
LA Golf showed that TGL Golf Holdings LLC improperly raced to the courthouse after a final demand letter to stop using “Los Angeles Golf Club” as a team name, the US District Court for the District of Delaware said Monday. That forum shopping weighed significantly against applying the “first-to-file” rule, the court said, forcing TGL to defend the team name in the Central District of California, where LA Golf filed its own suit.
The dismissal of TGL’s declaratory action in an opinion laced with golf and movie references by Judge Joshua D. Wolson tees up the fight over “LA Golf Club” trademarks in a Los Angeles federal courthouse in LA Golf’s home district. Wolson said declaratory judgment lawsuit’s like TGL’s are “meant to get legal clarity” for potential defendants, “not to deprive a national plaintiff of its preferred forum.”
The fight will largely hinge on the degree to which the mark will be perceived as geographically descriptive, where consumers perceive it as a merely indication of a product described by the mark and its location of origin. Such marks are generally not protectable, and offer only relatively thin protection even when they become so through consumer recognition.
TGL sued LA Golf Jan. 7, the same day the six-team simulated indoor golf league debuted, and four days after LA Golf last threatened litigation. In June 2023, the league had announced that one of the teams of four PGA players would be called the Los Angeles Golf Club and applied for an “LAGC” trademark registration, which the US Patent and Trademark Office later granted. LA Golf quickly applied to register “Los Angeles Golf Club” later in June. The PTO refused LA Golf’s mark as geographically descriptive.
TGL argued it sued not to race to the courthouse but as a business necessity. But it knew at least as of an October 2023 letter that its rights were contested, Wolson pointed out.
Convenience of the parties weighed in favor of Delaware hearing the case because LA Golf “can’t complain about having to litigate” where it’s incorporated, Wolson said. But the weight was slight because TGL didn’t argue it would be inconvenient for it to litigate in California.
Flaster Greenburg PC represents TGL. Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP represents LA Golf.
The case is TGL Golf Holdings LLC v. LA Golf Partners LLC, D. Del., No. 1:25-cv-00011, 6/9/25.
