Trademark Infringement Suit Filed Against LIV Golf and Phil Mickelson's Team Over HyFlyers Logo

Phil Mickelson’s LIV Golf team is being sued by a skateboarding footwear and apparel company.

Phil Mickelson’s LIV Golf Team, HyFlyers GC, is being sued by the footwear and apparel skateboarding brand Fallen for trademark infringement. 

A federal lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on Thursday in which Cool Brands Supply—the Argentine company which owns the intellectual property rights to Fallen—asserted that the HyFlyers logo is “nearly identical” to its 20-year-old trademarked logo. 

Both logos include a reflected pair of F’s. 

In the filing, Cool Brands Supply notes that it demanded the LIV Golf team to stop using the strikingly similar logo, but they refused to do so. 

“Defendents’ adoption and use of their knockoff logo nearly twenty years after Plaintiff commenced use and in the face of Plaintiff’s federal trademark registration is not just reckless and inexplicable - it is willful infringement and unfair competition,” Cool Brands Supply attorneys wrote. 

Fallen’s logo (left) versus HyFlyers GC (right), one of twelve LIV Golf team logos.  / Cool Brand Supply Complaint

The company claims that by printing the nearly identical brand logo on its team hats, shirts, and sweatshirts, the HyFlyers are “confusing customers” and “causing damage to Paintiff’s senior mark and brand.” 

Fallen uses the logo on its shoes, hats and clothing items. 

Mickelson captains the HyFlyers team, which also includes Brenden Steele, James Piot and Cameron Tringale. 

The company noted that Mickelson wore the “infringing mark” at the 2023 Masters, where he tied for second place. Fallen stated that the logo was broadcasted to “millions of consumers worldwide.” 

Cool Brands Supply also cited LIV Golf’s ties to Saudi Arabia as cause for concern in damaging the brand’s reputation—customers are wondering if Fallen has partnered with the start-up league. 

“Plaintiff has already received numerous customer comments and complaints regarding a supposed affiliation with Defendants, some of which are critical of Plaintiff in light of Defendants’ reputation as an effort to distract from their funding monarchy’s human rights abuses and cleanse Saudi Arabia’s repressive global image.”