City Calls Tournament’s Lawsuit ‘Egregious and Contentious’

City officials on Tuesday released their first formal comments in response to a lawsuit filed against Pasadena by the Tournament of Roses Association last week. 

In the lawsuit, the Tournament is claiming sole ownership of the Rose Bowl Game name.

“While the City of Pasadena typically does not provide comment on pending litigation, the egregiousness and contentiousness of the Tournament of Roses’ legal action last week warrants a response,” states the unsigned release issued one day after the full council met in closed session to discuss the lawsuit.

“The City is disappointed that its long-time partner, the Tournament of Roses, has chosen this divisive path. The fact is, the dispute between the parties is not about trademarks, as the Tournament has claimed. It is about the Master License Agreement (MLA) between the parties that requires that the Rose Bowl Game be played at the Rose Bowl Stadium,” the statement concludes.

In its lawsuit, the Tournament is suing the city for trademark infringement, unfair competition, false association, slander, and false advertising. 

The two sides fell out after the College Football Playoffs decided in December to move the annual game from Pasadena to AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas. In the process, the CFP would continue to call the semifinal game between the University of Alabama and Notre Dame University the Rose Bowl Game. 

The city claimed that it co-owned the name and, although the game could be moved, it could not be called the Rose Bowl Game without City Council approval.

In a brief final paragraph at the end of the city’s statement on the Tournament’s lawsuit, Mayor Victor Gordo stated “It is unexpected and unfortunate that our partner for nearly a century has chosen this route.”

“The City Council is resolute and has vowed to vigorously defend the city’s position,” he concluded.

In letters obtained by Pasadena Now, attorneys for the city claim their clients learned that the game was being moved during the broadcast of a UCLA game. During the game, a streamer flashed across the bottom of the screen saying the game would be played in Arlington and called the Rose Bowl Game.

The game’s logo also appeared on the College Football Playoff’s website before the City Council met in closed session to discuss the matter.

According to the MLA between the city and the Tournament, the tournament is obligated to hold the Rose Bowl Game in Pasadena on Jan. 1 unless a force majeure event occurs.

As part of an amendment to the MLA, the Tournament will pay the city $2 million.

A force majeure, or superior force clause, relieves parties from performing their contractual obligations when certain circumstances beyond their control arise.

According to the Tournament, the CFP declared a force majeure, but the city’s attorneys said they have not been able to confirm that. 

“First, the city is not a party to the TOR/CFP contract, nor has it even seen a copy of it or of the purported force majeure provision in it,” said Kent R. Raygor, an attorney for the city.

The city also claims the game was still capable of being played on Jan. 1 in the Rose Bowl Stadium as called for in the MLA, as long as no spectators were in attendance. Sports events were taking place across the country without fans. UCLA had played four games in the Rose Bowl without fans, and the NBA and NFL had also held games in the same manner.

“The City of Pasadena and its residents are extremely disappointed that the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association (‘TOR’) put the City in the untenable position of having to agree that the Rose Bowl Game would be moved to Arlington, Texas for the January 1, 2021 College Football Playoff (“CFP”) semifinal playoff game (the “CFP Game”),” attorneys wrote in a Jan. 7 letter. 

“This necessity arose because TOR was not transparent with the City regarding TOR’s contractual obligations with the CFP in which it appears TOR gave away rights to the Rose Bowl Game that it did not have. Your repeated claim that the TOR was allowed to do what it did “under trademark law” is irrelevant, because the TOR contracted with the City to restrict what TOR could and could not do with marks owned by both TOR and the City, and TOR violated those restrictions.”