You are here
Sometimes it pays just to be thankful, and if you’re in any rugby-related business you might be thankful for the perseverance of Jim Carlberg of Rugby America and Liquid Rugby.
It’s been a little over a year now since Carlberg’s battle with apparel monolith Polo Ralph Lauren (PRL) came to a head, but it’s a story worth remembering in case it (inevitable) rears its head again.
It was 2004 when Polo opened their first Rugby stores. The stores used the name because the rugby shirt has long been a big part of the Polo line. Of course Polo doesn’t have exclusive rights on a sport almost 200 years old … but they tried.
Within months Polo decided to take steps to garner exclusive rights to the word Rugby in apparel sales. They sent a cease and desist letter to Rugby America, telling them to stop selling products under the titles Rugby Girl, Rugby Since 1823, and others. Polo Ralph Lauren had already sued the United States Polo Association for trademark infringement (arguing that the sport’s governing body should not be allowed to use a polo player on a horse as their logo, because PRL uses a horse), and they successfully prevented Old Navy from a rugby-related ad campaign, so Carlberg, who owns Rugby America and Liquid Rugby, knew they were serious.
Over the years the adversaries engaged each other. Barbarians Rugby Supply joined as defendants, and despite PRL’s massive legal budget, they held firm.
Polo seemed to try to win these trademark cases by flooding the system with money. The more any legal action cost, the less likely a defendant would be to stick it out. The US Polo Association eventually won three out of four arguments – they USPA was forced to change one logo. Old Navy simply looked at their legal bill and settled.
But Carlberg et al. couldn’t afford to settle or give up. Had they done so, it is quite possible that any rugby-related retailer or apparel seller would be prevented from using the word rugby in a trademark.
“No individual, family or small company should go through what we did, emotionally, financially and business wise. They drug me, my wife, my kids and my company through hell,” says Carlberg.
In the end, Carlberg and Barbarians, both, ultimately, represented by
attorney Mark Weimelt, prevailed. The defendants ended up suing Polo for
fraud related to their original trademark application (they were looking
for attorneys fees, which they didn’t get). RPL claimed the trademark for
Rugby on a wide variety of products and businesses, even products they
didn’t make yet, and didn’t seem to have plans to make. That was a Patent
and Trademark no-no – you have to at least make the thing you want to put
the trademark on, and Polo Ralph Lauren did not for many of the items on
The damage had been done.
PRL attorneys stated in court that they were disavowing any claims they made in their original cease and desist letters to Carlberg, and were backing away from the case altogether.
The US District Court of Southern New York dismissed all of Polo’s claims, and they did it with prejudice, which means they can never sue Carlberg, Rugby America, Liquid Rugby or Barbarian on this matter again.
While that doesn’t mean any other rugby-related retailer is immune from being sued by Polo Ralph Lauren, it does make it a whole lot harder for the retailing monolith.
“If we didn't hold our ground on our brands, PRL would own the word RUGBY,”
says Carlberg. “No other person or company would ever be able to brand
merchandise with the word rugby on it, which is basically a monopoly.
With the way our sport is growing in the US, Ralph Lauren would have
secured himself as the sport. No one would ever be able to sell to the
retail world, anything that has to do with our sport. We stood firm, won
our case, were awarded our trademarks, and can sell rugby branded apparel.
Plus along the lines, we established many ‘legal time stamps’ of use of our
brands from 1981 to present day.”
And just to make sure, Carlberg’s Illinois-basedcompany received confirmation from the US Patent and Trademark Office on a trademark for Rugby Girl on June 10, 2010 and Rugby Since 1823 on December 21, 2010.
Those notifications were the victory lap for the company.
“I've spent 29 years designing and printing rugby T-shirts,” said Carlberg. “I'm now retired from playing. I coach high school and men's club rugby. I have three sons who all play rugby and I referee. No one ever goes into business only wanting to get so big, only wanting to sell so many ‘widgets,’ or wanting to be limited to who they can sell to. This is America, right? I always wanted to spread the word of our sport through our brands and designs.
“You will not believe what being in a lawsuit of this size can do to you. You can't borrow money; you can't grow. All expansion efforts had to be put on hold because anyone in the retail world who knew about the lawsuit wouldn't touch me with a 100-mile-long pole. Employees quit because they are unsure of the company's future. The domino effect is like something you have never seen.
“And then there is the mental aspect. I don't know how many times I almost gave up and started looking for a job, thinking this effort was ridiculous. Knowing in the back of my mind that I was right and that no one should be able to trademark the name of a sport, monopolize a sport or say who we can or can't sell to.”