Legal battles between golf-equipment makers are nothing new but the root of the latest clash between two golf-industry heavyweights might be: golf-ball paint.
In a lawsuit filed this month, TaylorMade alleged that Callaway has engaged in a “coordinated marketing campaign to mislead consumers and retailers … based on nothing more than how the balls appear under an ultraviolet ‘UV’ light.”
The suit, filed in the Southern California District of San Diego – near the headquarters of both companies – details actions allegedly taken by a Callaway sales agent, who during a marketing pitch illuminated balls from both companies under UV light and claimed that dark spots on the TaylorMade ball indicated imperfections or deficiencies.
The lawsuit, which was first reported by Front Office Sports, includes a screenshot of the pitch (below) and partial transcript of an exchange between a sales agent and a client, during which the agent suggests that paint coating differences on golf balls can impact performance akin to that of mud on the casing.
TaylorMade alleges that other Callaway sales reps “have made misleading sales pitches that overemphasize the relevance of UV light on paint coating coverage and golf ball performance,” and called TaylorMade balls “mud balls” during these demonstrations. TaylorMade said in the suit that the difference in appearance under UV light can be attributed to UV brightener – a “cosmetic additive” to the paint coat that “bears no meaningful relationship to ball flight, distance, playability or other performance attributes.”
TaylorMade alleges that Callaway has instructed more than just sales agents to perform this exercise, stating that misleading representations of TaylorMade balls have been made by Callaway staffers, ambassadors and influencers with ties to the manufacturer. The suit referenced an article by a golf-equipment website as an example of Callaway’s effort to “unfairly market” its balls against TaylorMade’s.
In the filing, TaylorMade takes issue with the uncontrolled UV light examination, noting a few different reasons – such as sun exposure – by which the test can deliver mixed results.
A TaylorMade representative provided a statement to GOLF.com that read in part: “While TaylorMade respects Callaway and their golf products, we are disappointed with Callaway’s attempt to unfairly compete with TaylorMade.
“TaylorMade commenced this lawsuit to safeguard its brand and reputation. We intend to debunk the claims being made about our products and hold Callaway accountable through the courts for not only disparaging our brand and products, but just as importantly, misleading consumers.”
Callaway provided this statement: “While we do not generally comment on matters in pending litigation, we continue to stand by the relevancy of UV light observations as related to the application of coating materials on golf balls and believe this is relevant information for the marketplace.”
Ball manufacturers go to great lengths to perfect their production processes, and decisions around paint coating – or interior weighting – do matter, in the same way that dimple arrangements or number of dimples can affect ball flight. Some balls have 348 dimples, others 376 and still others 388. Applying multiple coats of paint to these different arrangements requires infinitesimal adjustments by highly skilled engineers.
As for the importance of how balls appear under UV light and the relevance of that exercise on ball performance? We’re bound to learn more in court documents to come.
The post TaylorMade sues Callaway over ‘misleading’ golf-ball pitch. Here’s what we know appeared first on Golf.
Read the full article here
