Golden Globes Vs Golden Globe: Infringement & Money Are Latest Legal Battlefields In Shindig Skirmish
The company that owns the Golden Globes awards has sued the Golden Globe Foundation, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. It says the foundation’s use of the “Golden Globe” name for events, grants, auctions and merchandise confuses the public, and is seeking an injunction and unspecified damages.
The complaint, filed on 30 September, says the foundation rejected a cease-and-desist letter and ended licensing talks in July. It also alleges the foundation and the former Hollywood Foreign Press Association are coordinating against the awards’ owners, and claims a proposed settlement could redirect charitable funds to support the association’s separate lawsuit. The foundation disputes the company’s account, saying it was created as part of the 2023 sale and that the company had promoted its name; its spokesperson cited a grants dinner that distributed $5 million to 96 organisations.
- Golden Globes owners accuse the foundation of trademark infringement.
- They want the foundation to stop using the name and pay damages.
- The foundation says it was created as part of the 2023 sale.
New here? Start with this
The Golden Globes are annual film and television awards that were long run by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, a group of journalists covering entertainment. In 2023, the awards business was sold to a new owner, while a separate Golden Globe Foundation was created to support charitable work.
The dispute centres on who may use the similar names “Golden Globes” and “Golden Globe”, and how the foundation’s fundraising and events relate to the awards business. Trademark law governs the use of names and branding, while the foundation says its work includes giving grants to charities.
The case matters because a court decision could affect the foundation’s use of its name and the way its activities are presented to the public. It also sits amid wider disagreements involving the awards’ new owners and the former journalists’ association.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The awards’ owner can argue that using a closely similar name for events, grants and merchandise risks misleading the public about who organises or endorses them, and may weaken the value of its trademark. It says licensing talks ended without agreement and seeks a court order to protect its brand and commercial interests.
The case against
The foundation can argue that it was created as part of the 2023 sale and that the awards’ owner had promoted its name, making its continued use neither deceptive nor unfair. Its charitable work, including a grants dinner that distributed $5 million to 96 organisations, supports its claim that the name serves an established philanthropic purpose rather than an effort to trade on the awards.