Nicklaus also signed an employment agreement with Nicklaus Companies that barred him from designing golf courses and endorsing other businesses’ products and services, with a related noncompete agreement that lasted five years after his employment ended. Nicklaus resigned in 2017 after his relationship with Milstein had become “strained,” though Nicklaus Companies insisted that Nicklaus continued […]
Nicklaus also signed an employment agreement with Nicklaus Companies that barred him from designing golf courses and endorsing other businesses’ products and services, with a related noncompete agreement that lasted five years after his employment ended. Nicklaus resigned in 2017 after his relationship with Milstein had become “strained,” though Nicklaus Companies insisted that Nicklaus continued to provide some services.
Nicklaus Companies objected to Nicklaus in licensing his IP to golf tournaments and allegedly rejecting use of his NIL in a potential video game. These moves, Nicklaus Companies asserted, were in contravention of contractual obligations.
The judge further noted that the employment agreement and noncompete do not support Nicklaus Companies’ contention that Nicklaus is contractually barred from using his own name commercially. Those agreements expired, Cohen explained, and Nicklaus “is free of restraints to pursue his own business interests as he sees fit.”
Cohen underscored the absence of “any language of exclusivity or irrevocability” and interpreted this agreement as “not a sale or transfer” but merely a consent to use.
For instance, in 1994, Nicklaus signed an agreement with GBI that stated, “I, Jack Nicklaus . . . hereby consent to the use and registration of my name, likeness, signature, and all nicknames associated with me, including ‘Golden Bear’, by Golden Bear International . . . for all of the goods and services with which said corporation, its assigns or successors now or hereafter uses such name, likeness, signature and/or nicknames.”
The judge cautioned that Nicklaus Companies acquired “exclusive rights to specific trademarks” from the purchase and sale agreement, and Nicklaus will need to honor those rights.
From the mid-1980s to 2007, Nicklaus primarily used his company, GBI Investors (which at one time was called Golden Bear International), to handle licensing of his NIL and business dealings related to golf course design and commercial endorsements. Outside of GBI, Nicklaus also made paid appearances at golf tournaments.
The key legal question in the case is whether agreements provided Nicklaus Companies with the right to prohibit Nicklaus from using his NIL to design golf courses and personally endorse products.
Although evidence indicated Nicklaus had sometimes described GBI as his “exclusive” entity for licensing, Cohen found more significant there was “no evidence” that Nicklaus had contractually authorized GBI with the exclusive right to license his NIL.
Hall of Fame golfer Jack Nicklaus is free to use his own name, image and likeness, a New York trial judge ruled on Wednesday in a case brought by Nicklaus Companies.
Judge Joel Cohen granted Nicklaus summary judgment, mainly on grounds that the 85-year-old winner of a record 18 major championships never contractually granted exclusive licensing authority for his NIL—especially not, Cohen wrote, “exclusive even as against Mr. Nicklaus himself.”
In a statement shared with Sportico, Nicklaus Companies says while it is “disappointed the case was dismissed” and believes “there are several grounds for appeal,” it is “pleased” about the trademark law aspects of the ruling. The company notes the court “ruled that Nicklaus Companies LLC is the rightful owner of protected trademarks in the company’s licensing and golf course design businesses around the world—including the Jack Nicklaus™, Nicklaus™, and Golden Bear™ trademarked brand.” Nicklaus Companies also stated it has “the greatest respect for Jack Nicklaus and all that he has accomplished over the years” and “we remain available to collaborate with Mr. Nicklaus wherever appropriate going forward.”
Nicklaus Companies can appeal the ruling.
In 2007, Nicklaus sold GBI (and other assets) to businessman Howard Milstein for 5 million, a deal that led to the creation of Nicklaus Companies. The transaction sequence, Cohen explained, involved separate agreements. The purchase and sale agreement was between GBI—but not Nicklaus himself—and other companies. That agreement stated that Nicklaus Companies would not have “any recourse against Jack W. Nicklaus” in regard to “any claims that directly or indirectly arise or relate to . . . transactions undertaken by GBI.”
This story has been updated to include an excerpt of a statement from Nicklaus Companies.
Cohen determined Nicklaus Companies had not acquired such a right.
