Branding and trademarks are essential elements for any new company, especially when it comes to naming teams and creating unique identities. For any business looking to secure a niche in the market, securing trademark rights early is crucial to prevent future disputes. The importance of this precaution is vividly illustrated in a recent case involving Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy’s company, TGL Golf Holdings, LLC (“TGL”), and LA Golf Partners, LLC (“LAGP”). TGL, a new player in sports entertainment, has filed a declaratory judgment action against LAGP, a golf equipment company, asserting that its use of marks for its Los Angeles-based team does not infringe on LAGP’s alleged trademarks.[1] TGL seeks declarations including no false designation, unfair competition, dilution, nor likelihood of confusion between the marks. TGL challenges LAGP’s trademark registration on several grounds, including descriptiveness, non-use, and false representations.
Background of the Dispute and Facts
TGL announced its Los Angeles-based team, “Los Angeles Golf Club” (“LAGC”), on June 8, 2023. The team’s name, abbreviated to “LA Golf Club” or “LAGC,” is central to TGL’s branding for its upcoming tech-infused professional golf league. The very next day, TGL began selling various clothing items featuring the LAGC Marks.[2] The team, part of an innovative new venture in professional sports, boasts high-profile owners including Alexis Ohanian, Serena Williams, Venus Williams, and limited partners like Giannis Antetokounmpo, Alex Morgan, Servando Carrasco, Michelle Wie West, and Tisha Alyn. The team’s roster is filled with top talent, featuring Tommy Fleetwood, Sahith Theegala, Collin Morikawa, and Justin Rose.
Meanwhile, LAGP, a company founded in 2018, sells golf equipment and holds a registered trademark for the term “LA Golf Club.”[3] LAGP describes itself as a leading manufacturer of high-end golf shafts, putters, and golf balls, with prices for its premium products reaching up to $449 for putters and $150 for shafts. The company has expanded its products range to include branded clothing and other golf-related items. Despite its established presence, LAGP filed a trademark application on June 14, 2023, based on intent to use the mark, just six days after TGL publicly announced its team.
The timeline of events reveals a complex series of interactions. On October 18, 2023, LAGP sent a letter to TGL expressing concerns about trademark infringement and proposing potential partnership or royalty arrangements. While the letter outlined concerns over TGL’s use of the LAGC marks, it stopped short of making a formal objection instead looking for a financial agreement between the parties. TGL, however, rejected the offer, maintaining that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two marks. Then, on April 12, 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) sent an office action rejecting LAGP’s “LA Golf Club” trademark application, finding that it was descriptive. On April 26, 2024, counsel for TGL and LAGP engaged in a conference call, but they failed to reach any agreement. Months later, on December 17, 2024, LAGP finally succeeded in getting its mark registered on the USPTO’s Supplemental Register, not the Principal Register. On January 3, 2025, LAGP escalated matters by issuing a cease-and-desist letter, citing this registration. This letter came just days before TGL’s scheduled launch of its league on January 7, 2025.
TGL, which has been using and promoting its trademarks for nearly eighteen months, argues that LAGP’s sudden objection is strategically timed to disrupt its impending launch. TGL points out that it has received significant media coverage since June 2023, with no opposition from LAGP, despite filing trademark applications with the USPTO in June and November of 2023. As such, LAGP’s inaction added to the tension between the parties and raised questions about their timing and motives.
TGL’s Defenses
- Descriptive Nature of LAGP’s Marks
One of TGL’s strongest defenses is that LAGP’s “LA Golf Club” mark is descriptive and lacks inherent distinctiveness. A descriptive term is one that immediately conveys information about the characteristics, quality, or features of the goods or services it represents. Trademark law seeks to balance protecting competition from unfair restrictions while safeguarding the investments of trademark owners.[4] So, for a descriptive mark to gain protection, it must acquire secondary meaning so that the consuming public associates it with a specific source.[5]
In this case, TGL argues that the term “LA” is a widely recognized geographic designation, used by numerous sports teams. As Los Angeles is the second-largest city in the United States, the term “LA” is commonly understood to refer to the city itself.[6] Given that LAGP is based in Anaheim, just 30 miles away from Los Angeles, TGL claims that “LA Golf Club” remains a geographic reference rather than a distinctive brand. The addition of the words “Golf Club” does little to change this, as it simply describes the type of business (golf-related products and services) rather than serving as a unique identifier. Moreover, LAGP’s founder admitted in a YouTube interview that the company intentionally chose “LA” because of their love for the city, despite being fully aware of the potential legal risks.[7]
In support of this, the USPTO initially rejected LAGP’s application due its descriptiveness.[8] This prompted LAGP to amend its mark for the Supplemental Register—a secondary category for marks that lack inherent distinctiveness but may acquire it over time.[9] This USPTO Section 2(e)(2) refusal ensures that geographic names remain available for businesses in the same region.[10]
Yet, the Supplemental Register provides many benefits. While it does not grant a presumption of validity, it allows the mark holder to use the registration notice, file lawsuits in federal court, and deter others from using the mark.[11] TGL’s trademark application is currently suspended due to a Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal with LAGP’s mark.[12] While TGL’s design mark features a stylized “LA” with a golf club separating the letters, the USPTO insisted they disclaim “LA” and “Golf Club” as descriptive and geographically descriptive terms. Therefore, TGL’s application is on hold pending the outcome of LAGP’s earlier filed applications, leading to the current status of seeking a declaratory judgment.
- The Relevant Market: Golf Equipment vs. Indoor Sporting Entertainment Services
When evaluating the likelihood of confusion between two marks, the USPTO typically considers two key factors: the similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods and services offered under those marks.[13] TGL cannot dispute the similarity of the marks, as they are identical words absent differences in stylized design. However, TGL could challenge the relatedness of the goods. When goods and services aren’t clearly related, mere concurrent use isn’t enough to show consumers perceive them as originating from the same source. For example, comparing “restaurant services” with “beer” or “cooking classes” with “kitchen towels” requires more than co-use to show a common origin.[14]
TGL thus argues that the two companies operate in distinct markets. TGL offers indoor sporting entertainment services, specifically a tech-based golf league. In contrast, LAGP sells golf equipment such as clubs, shafts, and balls—products used by golfers but not directly tied to entertainment or sports leagues. TGL believes the likelihood of confusion is minimal due to this clear market separation. Golf equipment and professional sports entertainment are not typically associated with one another, and consumers do not generally expect to purchase golf-related equipment from a sports league entertainer. TGL further asserts that there is no reason to believe that consumers would confuse the two brands or assume that LAGP is involved in running a professional golf league.
- Allegations of Trademark Application Discrepancies and Bad Faith Interference
TGL has also raised serious allegations about LAGP’s trademark application, claiming that the company misrepresented the use of its “LA Golf Club” mark. Specifically, TGL claims LAGP falsely stated it had been using the mark since May 1, 2022, despite not offering golf-related services at that time. TGL points out the application’s discrepancies including LAGP’s claim under penalty of perjury to have used the mark with said services. However, LAGP’s own January 2025 letter contradicts this revealing that the “LA Golf Club” concept has not yet launched.[15]
TGL further accuses LAGP of bad faith in its conduct. TGL notes that LAGP was aware of TGL’s planned launch of its professional golf league, which had been publicly promoted for over a year. However, just days before the launch, LAGP issued a cease-and-desist letter. TGL believes this late-stage objection was a strategic attempt by LAGP to disrupt the launch, capitalize on the publicity, and gain a favorable financial outcome. TGL claims that LAGP’s actions are inconsistent with genuine concerns about trademark infringement and are intended to create confusion and leverage.
Conclusion
The trademark dispute between TGL and LAGP emphasizes the importance of protecting brand identity through proper registration and timely action. TGL challenges LAGP’s mark on grounds of no consumer confusion, descriptiveness, bad faith, and fraudulent conduct in its filings. TGL argues that LAGP’s objections and misrepresentations aim to disrupt TGL’s launch for financial gain. This case underscores the need for proactive, transparent legal action in securing and defending intellectual property, while highlighting the crucial role of branding and following expert legal advice.
Katelyn Kohler is a third-year law student at Suffolk University in Boston, specializing in Sports & Entertainment, Intellectual Property, and Labor & Employment Law. She holds dual degrees from Ithaca College in Business Administration: Sports Management and Legal Studies.
[1] Complaint, TGL Golf Holdings LLC v. LA Golf Partners LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00011 (D. Del. Jan. 6, 2025), ECF No. 1.
[2] See https://shop.lagc.com/.
[3] See https://lagolf.com/; LA GOLF CLUB, Registration No. 7,616,256, registered Dec. 17, 2024 (U.S. Patent & Trademark Office).
[4] 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(2); see TMEP §§1210, 1210.01(a).
[5] 15 U.S.C. §1052(f); see TMEP § 1212.
[6] U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Final Office Action, U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 98043117 (Apr. 12, 2024) ( describing how LA is primarily geographic for LAGP’s marks).
[7] U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Final Office Action, U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 98043117 (Apr. 12, 2024); RUHM Podcast with Tim Smith, Reed Dickens, Founder and CEO of LA Golf, From the Bayou to the White House to Entrepreneur, YouTube (Apr. 4, 2023), https://youtu.be/LeCgsbrU0PA.
[8] U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Final Office Action, U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 98043117 (Apr. 12, 2024).
[9] LA GOLF CLUB, Registration No. 7,616,256, registered Dec. 17, 2024 (U.S. Patent & Trademark Office).
[10] TMEP § 1210.02(b)(i).
[11] TMEP §§ 815.
[12] U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Suspension Letter, U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 98269207 (Sept. 19, 2024).
[13] TMEP § 1207.01.
[14] See In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d 1340, 1347, 68 USPQ2d 1059, 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
[15] Complaint at ¶ 45, TGL Golf Holdings LLC v. LA Golf Partners LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00011 (D. Del. Jan. 6, 2025), ECF No. 1. (quoting LAGP’s January 3, 2025 letter). “As you were informed in Seyfarth Shaw’s October 2023 letter, LA Golf has been running events out of the Beverly Hills “LA Golf Club” since before TGL announced its existence and has always had plans and proposed partnerships to expand that concept into larger consumer-facing entertainment venues. Now those aforementioned plans are coming to fruition with the planned launch in 2025 of the 20,000-plus square foot “LA Golf Club” near Downtown Los Angeles. And LA Golf is currently putting partners into place to assist in opening additional “LA Golf Club” entertainment lounges in other locations.” Id.
