Peppermint
Well-Known Member
That old Tiger. He\'s a card. (long)
I've posted this from BYM. The reason being I find it a bit uncomfortable that a celeb can threaten the livelyhood of a load of workers in this way. What do you guys think.
USA. Woods lawsuit “frivolous & misguided” says Christensen Yachts
Thursday, 29 September 2005
Press release:
Christensen Shipyards, Ltd., a luxury yacht builder based in Vancouver, Washington, said it is disappointed with a recent court ruling that allows a 2004 lawsuit filed by Tiger Woods to stay in Florida, despite Christensen's request for a change of venue to Washington State. A contract between the golfer and Christensen clearly states that the venue for "any suit or action ... filed by any party to enforce this Agreement or in connection with the subject matter of this Agreement, ... shall be in the Superior Court for Clark County, Washington."
Christensen's President and COO, Joe Foggia, said he is disappointed that Woods has chosen to pursue litigation in Florida against the privately held Northwest employer. "We are surprised to learn that the lawsuit - which we believe to be misguided - will continue in Florida, despite the fact that Mr. Woods agreed to the jurisdiction of the Washington courts," Foggia said.
The suit alleges that Christensen violated Woods' right of publicity by making it known that Woods had purchased a Christensen yacht, an allegation that Christensen refutes. Foggia said the decision is very disappointing to the company and its employees, calling the lawsuit "frivolous and misguided." According to Foggia, "The contract we signed with Mr. Woods makes it crystal clear as to the parties' rights. We, as a company, lived up to our side of the bargain - as we always do - and it calls into question whether Mr. and Mrs. Woods read the contract that their representatives signed." Foggia added, "This lawsuit is utterly baseless."
At issue in the lawsuit are two key provisions regarding the use of photographs and the Company's right to promote its product. According to the contract, Christensen can "take and use photographs of the Motor Yacht during construction, and before and after delivery for purposes of Builder's publishing, trade, advertising, or general purpose, along with printed matter." The contract further grants Christensen the right to "disclose orally to any prospective purchaser of its products, or to the media when asked, that [the Company] sold the Motor Yacht to a corporation in which Customer's principal [Woods] has an interest."
The lawsuit wrongfully accuses Christensen of orchestrating a national marketing campaign around the Woods' February 2004 purchase of a Christensen yacht. Also at issue in the lawsuit is whether Christensen deliberately sought to exploit the purchase " ... for commercial purposes and financial gain." The suit seeks more than $50,000,000 "without any explanation to support such a claim," according to Christensen's legal counsel, Casey Marshall of English, Lane, and Marshall, PLLC.
"If this action continues, we are confident the facts will come to light, and reveal the extent to which the legal representatives for Mr. Woods have done him a great disservice," Foggia said. "By insisting on pursuing a baseless claim at a great expense and inconvenience to the Company and the expense of more than 400 workers and their families, Mr. Woods is simply creating unnecessary publicity and attention."
Christensen has argued that, despite the steps the company took to keep the owner of the luxury yacht a secret, multiple events brought the Woods' purchase of the yacht into the public eye. For example, it was common knowledge within the industry that Mr. Woods (through his representatives) was looking to purchase a yacht in early 2004. At the time of the Wood's purchase, there were only two yachts of the 150 foot size available in the world. When the Christensen was off the market and the other yacht was still for sale, it was obvious which yacht Mr. Woods had purchased.
Furthermore, the impending wedding of one of the world's most recognized sports celebrities created a media "feeding frenzy" that started soon after Christensen delivered the yacht to Mr. and Mrs. Woods. In early October 2004, the tabloid press and attendant paparazzi descended upon the Woods' Barbados wedding and honeymoon - which they took aboard the Christensen yacht. The media feeding frenzy grew even stronger when, on October 14, 2004, just 10 days after the wedding, Woods' yacht was detained for over three hours by US Coast Guard in San Juan, Puerto Rico because of the Captain's failure to notify proper authorities before going into port. This was not the captain's first infraction.
As Christensen's attorneys argue, "With a three foot Christensen logo on the side of the yacht, how could anyone not know it was a Christensen?"
In Friday's ruling, the Judge also ordered that the preliminary injunction enjoining Christensen from using Mr. Woods' name or photographs of his yacht remains in effect, although the company had already agreed to the injunction. According to Foggia, "This is something we offered voluntarily to Mr. and Mrs. Woods because we realized they were obviously unaware of what had been contractually agreed upon regarding photographs and publicity. The Judge informed us that we were not obligated to proceed with the injunction, as we had contractual rights to the Company's photographs. What needs to be made clear is that we offered to give up our contractual rights in good faith to make our client happy. Clearly, our good faith gesture has been rebuffed."
Marshall also noted that the press releases by Mr. Woods' legal representatives seem contrary to the Woods' desire for privacy. "Mr. Woods' continuation of this suit and the press releases by his lawyer are a puzzling irony because it simply adds attention to something that Woods said they wanted to remain discreet," said Marshall.
Last Updated ( Thursday, 29 September 2005 )
I've posted this from BYM. The reason being I find it a bit uncomfortable that a celeb can threaten the livelyhood of a load of workers in this way. What do you guys think.
USA. Woods lawsuit “frivolous & misguided” says Christensen Yachts
Thursday, 29 September 2005
Press release:
Christensen Shipyards, Ltd., a luxury yacht builder based in Vancouver, Washington, said it is disappointed with a recent court ruling that allows a 2004 lawsuit filed by Tiger Woods to stay in Florida, despite Christensen's request for a change of venue to Washington State. A contract between the golfer and Christensen clearly states that the venue for "any suit or action ... filed by any party to enforce this Agreement or in connection with the subject matter of this Agreement, ... shall be in the Superior Court for Clark County, Washington."
Christensen's President and COO, Joe Foggia, said he is disappointed that Woods has chosen to pursue litigation in Florida against the privately held Northwest employer. "We are surprised to learn that the lawsuit - which we believe to be misguided - will continue in Florida, despite the fact that Mr. Woods agreed to the jurisdiction of the Washington courts," Foggia said.
The suit alleges that Christensen violated Woods' right of publicity by making it known that Woods had purchased a Christensen yacht, an allegation that Christensen refutes. Foggia said the decision is very disappointing to the company and its employees, calling the lawsuit "frivolous and misguided." According to Foggia, "The contract we signed with Mr. Woods makes it crystal clear as to the parties' rights. We, as a company, lived up to our side of the bargain - as we always do - and it calls into question whether Mr. and Mrs. Woods read the contract that their representatives signed." Foggia added, "This lawsuit is utterly baseless."
At issue in the lawsuit are two key provisions regarding the use of photographs and the Company's right to promote its product. According to the contract, Christensen can "take and use photographs of the Motor Yacht during construction, and before and after delivery for purposes of Builder's publishing, trade, advertising, or general purpose, along with printed matter." The contract further grants Christensen the right to "disclose orally to any prospective purchaser of its products, or to the media when asked, that [the Company] sold the Motor Yacht to a corporation in which Customer's principal [Woods] has an interest."
The lawsuit wrongfully accuses Christensen of orchestrating a national marketing campaign around the Woods' February 2004 purchase of a Christensen yacht. Also at issue in the lawsuit is whether Christensen deliberately sought to exploit the purchase " ... for commercial purposes and financial gain." The suit seeks more than $50,000,000 "without any explanation to support such a claim," according to Christensen's legal counsel, Casey Marshall of English, Lane, and Marshall, PLLC.
"If this action continues, we are confident the facts will come to light, and reveal the extent to which the legal representatives for Mr. Woods have done him a great disservice," Foggia said. "By insisting on pursuing a baseless claim at a great expense and inconvenience to the Company and the expense of more than 400 workers and their families, Mr. Woods is simply creating unnecessary publicity and attention."
Christensen has argued that, despite the steps the company took to keep the owner of the luxury yacht a secret, multiple events brought the Woods' purchase of the yacht into the public eye. For example, it was common knowledge within the industry that Mr. Woods (through his representatives) was looking to purchase a yacht in early 2004. At the time of the Wood's purchase, there were only two yachts of the 150 foot size available in the world. When the Christensen was off the market and the other yacht was still for sale, it was obvious which yacht Mr. Woods had purchased.
Furthermore, the impending wedding of one of the world's most recognized sports celebrities created a media "feeding frenzy" that started soon after Christensen delivered the yacht to Mr. and Mrs. Woods. In early October 2004, the tabloid press and attendant paparazzi descended upon the Woods' Barbados wedding and honeymoon - which they took aboard the Christensen yacht. The media feeding frenzy grew even stronger when, on October 14, 2004, just 10 days after the wedding, Woods' yacht was detained for over three hours by US Coast Guard in San Juan, Puerto Rico because of the Captain's failure to notify proper authorities before going into port. This was not the captain's first infraction.
As Christensen's attorneys argue, "With a three foot Christensen logo on the side of the yacht, how could anyone not know it was a Christensen?"
In Friday's ruling, the Judge also ordered that the preliminary injunction enjoining Christensen from using Mr. Woods' name or photographs of his yacht remains in effect, although the company had already agreed to the injunction. According to Foggia, "This is something we offered voluntarily to Mr. and Mrs. Woods because we realized they were obviously unaware of what had been contractually agreed upon regarding photographs and publicity. The Judge informed us that we were not obligated to proceed with the injunction, as we had contractual rights to the Company's photographs. What needs to be made clear is that we offered to give up our contractual rights in good faith to make our client happy. Clearly, our good faith gesture has been rebuffed."
Marshall also noted that the press releases by Mr. Woods' legal representatives seem contrary to the Woods' desire for privacy. "Mr. Woods' continuation of this suit and the press releases by his lawyer are a puzzling irony because it simply adds attention to something that Woods said they wanted to remain discreet," said Marshall.
Last Updated ( Thursday, 29 September 2005 )
