Golf without Titleist Pro Vs, the strongest name in golf balls, pretty unlikely
It’s difficult to imagine golf without the Titleist Pro V1, but if you take a recent court ruling literally, then you might be led to believe it could happen starting next year.
But for those of you who are married to you Pro V1s, relax, that’s a pretty unlikely scenario - even though last week the United States District Court in Wilmington, Del., granted Callaway Golf’s request for a permanent injunction to stop sales of the Acushnet Co.’s current line of Titleist Pro V1 family of golf balls, effective no later than Jan. 1. The court also rejected Acushnet’s request to overturn a 2007 jury verdict that found that Callaway Golf’s golf ball patents were valid and infringed by Acushnet’s Titleist Pro V1 family of golf balls.
Now this certainly seems like trouble for Acushnet and not the first time the golf ball market leader has been challenged on these patents. In 2007, Bridgestone Golf reached a settlement with Acushnet, which agreed to pay royalties following a 2 1/2-year ball patent infringement suit.
Acushnet has seen this coming for some time, and the company says the Pro V1s being produced since September for the consumer market and into the future are outside the patents in question. According to Acushnet, by the way, Spalding originally acquired the four parents in question in 2001 and 2003 - well after the Pro V1 was introduced ? and those patents were later acquired by Callaway in 2003 when it purchased Spalding.
In short, this will work its way out somehow. The Pro V1 and Pro V1x aren’t going away. Titleist is already planning to introduce in 2009 new Pro V1s that do not use the patents in question. Not to worry, though, Acushnet assures us that these will be the best Pro V1s yet.
|« San Antonio golf, tourism fending off recession - for now||Out with the PGA and LPGA: Bring on golf's silly season »|
I like to try all makes/models, taking them out for a 'spin'. If you're stuck with the notion that one golf ball is all you need, then you have been duped by the advertisers.