A few days after indicating it will fight the city’s request to recover more than $400,000 in attorneys’ fees, the Tournament of Roses said it will revive its claims against the city of Pasadena relating to the naming rights of the Rose Bowl game by appealing to a higher court.
Tournament officials announced in a notice filed Tuesday, Aug. 10 that they intend to challenge the ruling of U.S. District Judge André Birotte Jr., who dismissed the tournament’s lawsuit in July.
The legal battle seemed to be drawing to a close when the city submitted a request to recoup attorneys’ fees, but this week’s action by the Tournament is the latest in a series that first started in February.
For the 2021 Rose Bowl, the Tournament of Roses invoked a “force majeure” clause in a contract with the city and argued the game was impacted by a pandemic — something no one could control — so Tournament officials believe they held the right to move the game even though the contract stipulates it will be played in Pasadena, as long as the stadium is in working order.
It’s about naming rights, or –
Although the game was moved to Arlington, Texas, Tournament officials wanted to establish in court the city lacked any intellectual property ownership over the trademarks, including the use of the name “Rose Bowl Game,” and that under a master licensing agreement with the city, the association had the right to move the Rose Bowl game outside of Pasadena.
The city argued the pandemic and a master licensing agreement gave it the right to restrict the game from being played anywhere other than the actual Rose Bowl.
Now that the Tournament’s case has been dismissed — a move that had both sides declaring victory at the time — Tournament lawyers are appealing that decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“The Executive Committee decided to take this step to underscore the Tournament’s commitment to preserving its rights in its ‘Rose Bowl’ family of trademarks and related intellectual property,” Tournament of Roses CEO David Eads said in a statement Thursday. “Although the city has conceded that it has no ownership rights in those marks, there remain important concerns over the city’s unauthorized use of those marks and related issues that we believe must be remedied by the court.”
The notice filed with the court this week doesn’t detail the Tournament’s legal arguments. Opening briefs on the matter are to be submitted by Thursday, Nov. 18, according to the court documents.
The way city officials see it, to date, the legal spat has cost taxpayers hundreds of hours in attorneys’ fees, which was spent fighting the “baseless litigation,” according to paperwork filed with the court by the city.
Shopping the Rose Bowl around?
As a result, Pasadena officials contend they are entitled to a reward of fees because the Tournament did not achieve its objectives — “namely, to silence the mayor’s speech on matters of public concern to the citizens of Pasadena,” attorney Kent Raygor wrote on behalf of the city, repeating a belief that Tournament officials filed the lawsuit to gain the court’s permission to move the game to another venue in the future, “and shop it to the highest bidder.”
In a statement issued Saturday, Aug. 7 and reiterated Thursday, City Manager Steve Mermell agreed with Raygor: “Despite the false accusations of the Tournament of Roses, the city of Pasadena never claimed ownership in any of the Tournament’s trademarks.”
The court filings proved this and the judge agreed, he said.
“Moreover, with its latest statement, the Tournament is signaling its ultimate intention, to market the Rose Bowl Game to the highest bidder regardless of location,” he said. “The Tournament needlessly hauled the city into court, and we look forward to resolution of this issue by the court also.”
Mermell added he doesn’t intend to argue the matter further in the media, however he’s not the only person in the city vocalizing discontent with the situation and their partner of more than 100 years.
Mayor Victor Gordo, who has since attempted to get the city and Rose Bowl officials together to reconcile, agreed with the belief that Pasadena legally prevailed.
“It cannot be said any clearer than the judge said: The heart and soul of the Rose Bowl game belongs to the people of Pasadena,” Gordo said last Saturday. “That was true before this needless litigation was brought and it remains true today.”
The Tournament vehemently disagrees though.
“We reiterate once again our commitment to Pasadena and our conviction that the Rose Bowl Game should, except in extremely rare and extenuating circumstances, always be played here, in the Rose Bowl Stadium itself, on the afternoon of New Year’s Day,” Eads said in his statement.
“It is essential that everyone understand that on this issue, we stand as one with all Pasadenans in our determination to protect the unique traditions of the Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game, and its primacy among the traditional bowl games.”