Tournament of Roses Sues City of Pasadena Over Ownership of Rose Bowl Trademarks

The Tournament of Roses Association Thursday sued the city of Pasadena in order to have a federal court determine ownership of the “Rose Bowl” and “Rose Bowl Game” trademarks.

The association contends it has full ownership of the name, while the city alleges it shares naming rights.

In a statement, Tournament Executive Director/CEO David Eads rejected the city’s assertions of co-ownership.

“We are a nonprofit civic organization with hundreds of volunteers and deep roots in Pasadena,” said Executive Director/CEO David Eads. “This is where the parade and the game belong every year, and we have no intention of going anywhere.”

“Unfortunately, the City of Pasadena’s attempt to assert co-ownership in what are indisputably our trademarks threatens to interfere with our ability to carry out even routine business activities, and we have no choice but to get confirmation of our rights by the courts.”

Thursday night, Pasadena spokeswoman Lisa Derderian said city officials had just received the lawsuit and would not immediately be able to comment.

A dispute over the name arose this past December after the College Football Playoffs moved a semifinal game from the Rose Bowl to Arlington, Texas as the result of the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving locals to wonder if the game would still be called the Rose Bowl.

Originally it was reported that use of the Rose Bowl Game name could only be transferred by a City Council vote.

But the city ultimately agreed to the use of the name without a Council vote.

The Tournament today said disagreement has “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 MLA’s “force majeure” clause.

While the Association has no plans or desire to move the game in the future, Eads said – this year was only the second time in history the Rose Bowl Game was played outside Pasadena, the other time being the immediate aftermath of the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor – it does need a court’s clarification of its contractual and ownership rights.