Acushnet Fires Back at Costco Over Competing Golf Ball

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin

The Costco v. Acushnet lawsuit jumped forward last week when Acushnet fired back with its countersuit, five months after Costco initiated proceedings by filing for a declaratory judgment. The dispute, as we have discussed at greater length in previous articles, centers on the Titleist Pro V1 golf balls and Costco’s competing Kirkland-branded ball.

In its countersuit, Acushnet claimed that the Kirkland ball infringed on ten of its patents covering the core, various layers, and dimples of the Titleist golf balls. Acushnet has also challenged the “Kirkland Signature Guarantee” as false advertising because its promise that the products “meet or exceed the quality standards of leading national brands” is untrue in this case.

To prove this point, Acushnet subjected the Kirkland balls to several performance and durability tests it employs on its own products to show that the Kirkland balls do not perform or hold up as well, let alone better. The false advertising claims will weigh more heavily on Costco after it was hit with a $19 million judgment on Monday by Tiffany & Co. for describing some of its jewelry as “Tiffany” style.

Also see our previous article on the subject: Costco v. Acushnet: Costco’s Preemptive Strike Sets Tone for Litigation


Andrew Rapacke

Andrew Rapacke

Andrew Rapacke is a registered patent attorney and serves as Managing Partner at The Rapacke Law Group, a full service intellectual property law firm. If you would like to speak with Andrew Rapacke, click here to schedule your free consultation.

Share Your Thoughts

Rapacke Invention Patent Attorney Service

Before you go...

See what type of IP protection is the best fit for you by taking our Intelligent IP Quiz.

Answer a few question's and instantly learn what type of IP protection is the best fit.

It takes less than 1 minute!