Tournament of Roses Appeals to Ninth Circuit to Revive Claims Against the City Dismissed by Lower Court

The Tournament of Roses asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to revive its claims against the City in a lawsuit that may not only have irreparable damaged the relationship between the city and the Tournament, but could also pave the way for the Tournament to become part of the expanded College Football Playoffs and control where and when the game is held.

So far the Tournament has not listed what parts of U.S. District Court Judge André Birotte, Jr.’s July 12 decision it plans to challenge.

Opening briefs in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals are due by Nov. 18.

The move could forestall any decisions by Birotte with regards to awarding attorney fees to the city, which had asked the court to require the Tournament to pay Pasadena over $400,000 to cover its legal bills incurred during the lawsuit.

Last month, Birotte sided with the city in dismissing all but one of the counts filed by the Tournament in its February lawsuit for alleged trademark infringement, unfair competition, false association, slander and false advertising.

With regards to that one count — regarding the so-called force majeure clause — the court declined to rule, saying it was premature to speculate if another force majeure situation would occur.

After the lawsuit, the Tournament claimed the  “suit achieves key purposes.”

“Through the confirmation of the Tournament’s trademark rights and the preservation of its force majeure rights, the suit’s main goals were achieved,” Tournament of Roses CEO David Eads said today.

But apparently that’s not the case now.

“Yesterday the Pasadena Tournament of Roses filed notice of our intent to appeal the dismissal of our claims against the City of Pasadena,” CEO David Eads told Pasadena Now on Wednesday night.

“The Executive Committee decided to take this step to underscore the Tournament’s commitment to preserving its rights in its ‘Rose Bowl’ family of trademarks and related intellectual property. Although the City has conceded that it has no ownership rights in those marks, there remain important concerns over the City’s unauthorized use of those marks and related issues that we believe must be remedied by the court.”

Pasadena officials said they were aware of the Tournament’s intentions and would not comment further.

“We are not commenting and we are not going to argue the matter further in the press,” Public Information Officer Lisa Derderian said when contacted by Pasadena Now.

Tensions between the two sides escalated when restrictions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic caused the cancellation of the annual Rose Parade and barred fans from attending the Rose Bowl Game in Pasadena. The game was ultimately moved to Arlington, Texas, marking the first time since 1942 that the Rose Bowl game was played outside of Pasadena.

A Los Angeles federal court lawsuit claimed that the Tournament invoked the “force majeure” clause of its contract, maintaining that the pandemic was out of its control, so the association had the right to move the game out of Pasadena to AT&T Stadium in Arlington.

Although the dispute originated in the displacement of the game, a move agreed to by Pasadena officials, problems have persisted through the city’s “continued insistence that it is the co-owner of the marks and that its consent is necessary” to invoke the contract’s unforeseeable circumstances clause, according to the association.

The relationship between the Tournament and the city turned sour after the College Football Playoffs (CFP) decided to move the game to Arlington, Texas.

The Tournament promised to gift the city $2 million over three years.

But the CFP may be what the lawsuit is really about.

The College Football Playoffs is looking to expand its tournament and wants the new format to focus more on the matchups instead of past traditions.

Under that format, the Rose Bowl could be forced to abandon the traditional Pac-12 vs. Big 12 game Jan 1 game and hold the game in early December.

Last month Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff said he thinks “there’s a solution in which the Rose Bowl is part of the CFP but is able to maintain its traditions of a 2 p.m. kickoff on New Year’s Day and, at the same time, enjoy the economic benefits that come with it. There are creative solutions where the Rose Bowl can be part of it. I hope all the six New Year’s games are part of it.”

The six games are the Rose Bowl Game and the Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton and Peach bowl games — also played on Jan. 1.

The television rights for a proposed 12-team playoff could be worth about $1.9 billion annually.

Last month Judge Birotte called the contention “puzzling” in light of the past cooperation between the City and the Tournament.

“The court does not find that defendant is attempting to capitalize on consumer confusion or to appropriate the Rose Bowl Game,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiff and defendant have been business partners for decades. Due to this mutually beneficial relationship, plaintiff has consistently benefited from defendant’s promotion of plaintiff’s game.”