Not out of the Woods yet: Trade Mark Headaches for Tiger Woods and Sun Day Red
Not long after Tiger Woods had launched, on 1 May 2024, his Sun Day Red apparel line brand, he started running into some tricky intellectual property problems.
Featuring a stylised tiger logo, with 15 stripes – one for each of his major wins – the brand has sparked trade mark disputes in both the US and Europe. In the US, Tigeraire, a company specialising in portable electric fans designed for use in sports, has opposed the applications, and the sportswear giant Puma has done the same in the UK and EU.
US Dispute with Tigeraire
In the US, Tigeraire has a registered trade mark in class 11 of the Nice Classification of Goods and Services for Marks for portable electric fans and similar products. The company's opposition to the Sun Day Red mark centres on the visual similarity between its logo – a stylized tiger with distinctive stripes – and Woods' tiger logo. Although the products are not similar to those for which Sun Day Red is seeking registration, Tigeraire argues that its strong connection to sports could create confusion among consumers, who might believe that the brands are related due to the highly similar tiger devices.
In alleging Sun Day Red is “unlawfully hijacking” its branding, Tigeraire points to the fact that its products are designed to be used by sportspeople, including golfers. It claims that its earlier rights “are being washed out and overtaken by [the Sun Day Red] large scale marketing blitzes and celebrity affiliation with Tiger Woods”.
UK and EU Dispute with Puma
In Europe, Sun Day Red faces a slightly different challenge. In both the UK and EU trade mark registries, Puma – a well-established sportswear company – has filed oppositions of its own.
It focuses on potential confusion between its own feline logo and the Sun Day Red tiger mark, as well as alleging that the Sun Day Red marks take unfair advantage of, or are detrimental to the distinctiveness or repute of, Puma’s earlier marks. Puma owns trade marks covering a number of classes, including in class 25 (clothing, footwear, and headgear) and class 28 (sporting equipment), which directly overlap with Woods' key product lines.
Puma’s argument relies in part on the similarity between its own leaping feline and Woods' stylised tiger. However, there are notable differences. Puma’s logo, an abstract, left-facing feline, contrasts with the Sun Day Red more detailed, right-facing tiger. These stylistic and directional distinctions will weaken Puma’s case for confusion and for infringement more broadly.
It is worth briefly referencing an important trade mark case from the 1990s involving Puma that went to the European Court of Justice, culminating in a decision in 1997: Puma v Sabel (Case C-251/95). The Court, in essence, deemed Puma’s design insufficiently distinctive or well-known to block the registration of Sabel’s own leaping feline.
That case was a long time ago however and Puma’s logo is now globally recognised and has become synonymous with the brand’s identity in the sportswear market. This increased recognition will strengthen Puma’s legal current position.
Focus on Trade Mark Classes
In disputes of this kind, the classes of goods and services of the respective marks is usually critical.
Tigeraire holds a class 11 trade mark for handheld fans, a product not directly related to apparel or sporting equipment. This will detract from Tigeraire’s arguments. Its case, therefore, rests heavily on visual similarity and potential consumer confusion.
Puma, on the other hand, holds trade marks in classes 25 and 28, which are the same classes that Sun Day Red is targeting. This gives Puma a stronger legal basis, in some respects, for its challenge, as it can claim that Sun Day Red is seeking to register its mark for goods that are either identical, or highly similar, to those that it has registered. However, the distinct visual differences between the two logos, particularly the detailed versus abstract design, still poses a legal challenge for Puma.
Conclusions
In both the US and Europe, the parties have the ultimate option to either fight or seek an amicable settlement.
Settling could offer a faster, less costly resolution, but one thing is for sure: Sun Day Red will be highly reluctant to rebrand.
Given the investment already made into the brand’s launch, including its visual identity, Woods’ team will be motivated to ensure that they can keep their logo and the rest of their branding. Indeed, they may need to offer money as part of any settlement.
Perhaps the smaller Tigeraire might be satisfied with a pay-off here.
Whether the same can be said of the deep-pocketed Puma is anyone’s guess, however, and the European disputes perhaps look more likely to go all the way.
Tiger Woods has three Open Championships in the bag. Could he win again on European soil?
This article was first published on www.sportslawandtaxation.com
