Why a Jury Awarded $2.2 Million to Callaway at Maxfli’s Expense & Why You Must be Careful in Your Comparative Advertising
Do you remember the Maxfli A10? This golf ball was launched in August of 2001 and quickly racked up over a dozen wins on the professional tours. There was even a contest called “A10 Tell Us Your Best Story” that invited consumers to submit their A10 stories for a chance to win an Orlando, Florida prize package. Although the ball experienced a great deal of success early in its life, an advertising campaign gone awry was one factor that eventually led to the ball’s extinction.
Shortly after the A10’s entry into the market, Maxfli began touting their new product as “The Longest Ball on Tour.” Knowing that golf is a game of inches, and distance sells, it seemed like a perfect slogan to help attract those golfers interested in gaining a few more yards off the tee. At least one ball manufacturer took exception to the A10’s claim. Enter Callaway Golf Company.
On October 3, 2001, Callaway sued Maxfli alleging that several Maxfli balls infringed Callaway’s U.S. Patent No. 6,213,898. The infringement action did not survive, but Callaway amended its complaint to allege a false advertising claim. Apparently Callaway had evidence that suggested the Maxfli A10 was not, in fact, “The Longest Ball on Tour.” During the proceedings, Maxfli conceded that it performed tests on lest than half of the balls used on the PGA tour. Even some of Maxfli’s own tests indicated that the A10 was not the longest ball on tour. Unfortunately for the A10, Maxfli’s marketing department continued promoting the ball as “The Longest Ball on Tour.”
The legal proceedings played out over the course of three years and on August 12, 2004, a jury awarded Callaway $2.2 million for the false advertising claim. The amount was subsequently reduced to $1.1 million after the court vacated damages for corrective advertising. Still, not too bad for basically eliminating a competitor’s product. And by the way, Callaway didn’t have to share a single penny of its award with other manufacturers that had balls on tour longer than the A10.
Perhaps this is one reason that there is not more comparative advertising in the golf industry (see prior post).
Interesting case. I bet Maxfli is a lot more careful with their advertising now!
Dave Dawsey – The IP Golf Guy