[PHOTO: Mike Mulholland]

In a recent online exchange, L.A.B. Golf founder Sam Hahn was explaining why the company was dropping the “broomstick” terminology on its putters and replacing it with “sweeper”. The answer was eyebrow-raising.

“We are trying to change it because the expansive legal team at Callaway somehow managed to trademark the term ‘broomstick’ and sent us a cease-and-desist requiring that we pull down any ad that we have made over the past two years that says broomstick.”

Wait. You can trademark the word broomstick?

Apparently so. Although the term “broomstick” has been around for some time (Nick Seitz wrote in the February 1992 issue of Golf Digest about Peter Senior’s broomstick putter, and many Australian media outlets used it in 1989, in particular, as Senior ‘swept’ his way to three consecutive tournament victories here), Callaway filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office to trademark the term on September 6, 2018 (serial number 88108765).

Two weeks ago, Hahn said he received a notice from Callaway’s legal department stating L.A.B. Golf was in violation of the trademark, which required them to go back and scrub any mention of broomstick from its putter lexicon. In the aftermath of the cease-and-desist, L.A.B. opted to go with the name “sweeper” over a list of potential replacements that included “long putter” and “mop”. (Hahn confirmed no one has trademarked the term “sweeper”.)

“On the threatening scale, it was about a 6,” Hahn told Golf Digest of the letter. “It was a five or six-page document with areas where we’d used broomstick. It sucks. I don’t know what else to say. The timing was so strange. We’ve had tons of success on tour with long putters, and we’d been advertising them. My guess is we’ve sold more long putters than anyone. With Lucas Glover’s success and how popular Adam Scott’s made it, our visibility has increased. We’ve been at it for years. Then out of nowhere, they decide to assert their authority on this. It’s hard to understand the motivation. It’s so petty. Who is this serving?”

L.A.B. putters have gained momentum on tour and in the marketplace in 2024. Although L.A.B. did not register in golf retail tracking firm Golf Datatech’s January 2024 numbers, it sports a 7.2-percent share in October. For perspective, that is more than Bettinardi, Cobra, Evnroll, Mizuno and SeeMore combined. In terms of dollar share, the numbers are even stronger at 11.6 percent, topped only by Odyssey, Titleist and TaylorMade and bettering putter stalwart Ping.

According to a Callaway spokesman, the letter was not a move aimed strictly at L.A.B. Golf and, in fact, the company has sent other cease-and-desist letters in the past regarding its trademark, rightfully protecting what is theirs. The company did not respond to a question on why the letter was sent now to L.A.B.

While L.A.B. is still weighing its legal options – one possibility is going straight to the US Patent and Trademark Office – Hahn chose to change the name to comply with the trademark, believing it was in the best interest of the company to move forward and not get into a legal tiff with Callaway.

“We have so much going on,” Hahn said. “It didn’t make sense to push, so we decided to get creative and silly with the naming and call it the sweeper.”

While Callaway is within its legal rights to send the letter, a question remains: how are you able to trademark such an oft-used term in the first place?

“Generally, one cannot trademark a generic phrase, or a phrase that is simply descriptive,” said Tom Allen, an Ohio-based attorney versed in trademark law. “In addition, theoretically, one is not supposed to be able to trademark a common phrase or term used throughout an industry or business. For example, it would be difficult to trademark the term ‘putter’ now… Therefore, in theory, trademarking that term should have been viewed as an uphill battle. However, like so many areas of intellectual property, success might depend on exactly who is reviewing that specific application that day.”

If L.A.B. were to challenge the validity of the trademark, there are hurdles there as well – namely, cost. The question then becomes whether the trademark at issue is worth challenging.

“The decision at that point comes down to a cost-versus-benefit analysis,” Allen says. “The company wishing to challenge might decide that the marginal sales gain from being able to also use the term is not worth the time, effort and extensive – and expensive – lawyer fees to pursue it, especially if there is no guarantee of a win. At that point, the company not holding the trademark might consider other alternatives: in this case, perhaps trademarking and using a different term or phrase.”

Just not broomstick.