Pro Tennis Racket Endorsement Prompts Questionable Lawsuit

The U.S. Open kicked off yesterday in Queens, New York, with the world’s greatest tennis stars warming up to compete. There’s a lot of money involved in such a major tournament, with the top players commanding high salaries and lucrative sponsorship deals. It’s no surprise – the Arthur Ashe Stadium alone can seat 23,700 fans, with the second largest court used for the tournament, the Louis Armstrong Stadium, able to take 10,000. Add in televised broadcasts and media coverage, and the player’s names and brands carry a lot of clout.

That is an unreasonably strained reading of a simple advertising slogan.

Racket maker Babolat VS North America Inc. was recently hit with a proposed class action over its use of endorsements from Rafael Nadal (current world number two player) and Andy Roddick (retired, former world number one player). According to plaintiff Payam Ahdoot, the company’s use of the phrase “Racquet of Choice” and “Signature Racquet” is misleading, implying that the players use Babolat brand rackets exclusively, when in reality this isn’t the case. The company has asked a California federal judge to dismiss the suit, arguing that the plaintiff is being far too literal in his interpretation of the advertisements.

“Plaintiff’s position is that ‘Racquet of Choice’ is a definitive statement warranting that the then-commercially available AeroPro Drive is Mr. Nadal’s choice of racquet at all times, in all places, and in a completely uncustomized, off-the-shelf way,” the company said in its petition, filed Monday. “That is an unreasonably strained reading of a simple advertising slogan, and courts have rejected false advertising claims that resort to an irrationally literal interpretation of advertising language.”

The suit was first filed in April when Ahdoot argued that the claims as he interpreted them were false, and tantamount to breach of warranty. He also sued under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Ahdoot claimed that he purchased the racket specifically because of its association with the tennis stars, believing that the racket he purchased was the same as those used by Nadal and Roddick. In reality, the players use customized rackets for professional matches that aren’t available to the public.

To the plaintiff, this constitutes deception. Ahdoot claims that the professional-level rackets are altered to make them appear similar to rackets available to consumers.

Babolat’s having none of it, however, and has asked for the dismissal arguing that the plaintiff has failed to present any rational or plausible basis for the claims, or proof that consumers might ever believe the slogans imply that off-the-shelf rackets are used in professional tournaments.

“Plaintiff makes a distinction without a difference,” the company said. “Reasonable consumers are attuned to treat endorsements for what they are, irrespective of whether the celebrity is a professional athlete.”

With “reasonable” often hard to define, it will be interesting to see whether Ahdoot can argue his case. For now, however, the tennis-world’s attention is focused squarely on Queens and the next few weeks of competition.