[PHOTO: Ben Jared]
In the seemingly endless legal slugfest between Jack Nicklaus (the golfer) and the Nicklaus Companies, LLC (his former corporate alter ego), the latest round has gone to the Golden Bear – the human being, that is. Last week, a trial judge in Manhattan dismissed the case brought by the company which sought to control Nicklaus’ attempts to use his own name to promote his golf course design and other businesses. In a 35-page ruling, Justice Joel M. Cohen put an apparent end to what he called the “seemingly unlikely dispute” between one “Nicklaus” and another.
The legal machinations have been complex, but the root of the conflict is simple. In 2007, Nicklaus accepted a $US145 million investment in his company from Howard Milstein, a New York businessman who turned a family real estate fortune into a diversified multi-billion-dollar empire. According to the deal, Nicklaus retained control of the Nicklaus Companies, at least in theory, but Milstein had a role, too, and in short order, the two alpha dogs were at each other’s throats. Nicklaus (the person) grew so frustrated with the situation that in 2022 he quit his own company and sought to resume doing business, including designing golf courses, on his own. In response, Milstein, as the ongoing proprietor of the Nicklaus Companies, sued Jack Nicklaus, attempting to force him to continue doing business exclusively through the company.
That was the case dismissed last week. “Barbara and I have tried our best to ensure that the Nicklaus name is worthy of respect,” Nicklaus told Golf Digest, “and we are extremely pleased that Howard’s challenges to the family’s ownership are put to rest.”
Actually, the result is a little more complicated. The judge ruled that the Nicklaus Companies still owns the trademarks it purchased along with the company. This means that the company can continue to sell clothing and golf equipment with such logos as “Jack Nicklaus”, “Nicklaus” and “Golden Bear”. More importantly, from a financial perspective, the company can continue to design golf courses under the Nicklaus brand, including “Jack Nicklaus Signature”, which previously had been the courses in which Nicklaus took a leading role in creating. According to a company spokesman, the Nicklaus Companies has several dozen golf course designs in the works under the Nicklaus name (albeit without Nicklaus himself).
So what did Nicklaus (the person) win? The ruling gives Nicklaus the same right as every college basketball star – to market his “name, image and likeness”. At age 85, Nicklaus is still designing golf courses around the world. Thanks to the decision, he can continue to advertise and sell his design services and promote golf courses under his own name. As Nicklaus said, “I am deeply grateful for the time Justice Cohen devoted to the issues in New York and thankful for his conclusion that I own my name, image and likeness, and Howard Milstein does not.”
So is that it? Does that put this battle of billionaire vs millionaire to an end? Not exactly. Jack Nicklaus has filed a separate defamation lawsuit against Milstein in Florida. The case is based on claims by Milstein that Nicklaus sought a multi-million-dollar role in LIV Golf when the Saudi-sponsored league was gearing up a couple of years ago. Nicklaus, who was one of the original sponsors and members of the PGA Tour, has denied that he ever wanted anything to do with the breakaway league. That case may go to trial this year. In addition, the spokesman for Milstein said that the company plans to appeal Justice Cohen’s ruling.
In other words, the court battles between the two men will go on. And on.
