Kirkland (Costco) Premium Golf Ball

[No Mulligans]

16 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Who's the bully here? Costco is not the "little guy".

 

The bully is the one that started the fight... 

Edited March 28, 2017 by No Mulligans

[Jeremie Boop]

22 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Who's the bully here? Costco is not the "little guy".

 

 

6 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

The bully is the one that started the fight... 

This whole "bully" talk is nonsense. It's two business's looking out for themselves and trying to maximize their market share in a particular area.

[DwightC]

+1 that there are no bullies here.

You've simply got a market incumbent (Acushnet) that has historically used its IP portfolio successfully to defend its market share against new entrants and a new entrant (Costco) that is significantly larger than the previous smaller potential competitors.  What Acushnet has to have concluded is that the opportunity (golf balls) is so trivial in the greater scheme of Costco that an aggressive letter would deter Costco.  

It does not appear to have done so.  If Costco has concluded that golf balls are representative of a class of opportunities which are collectively an attractive brand extension opportunity for Kirtland Signature (niche markets where the market leader defends its position with a combination of brand equity and an IP portfolio), I would be looking to de-escalate the situation, if I were Acushnet.

[MRR]

Even if Acushnet is trying to be a bully, they have not done anything to be a bully yet (like me slamming the accelerator in my Dodge 600; I might have wanted to go 30 over the limit, but it wasn't going to happen for quite some time).  Acuschnet absolutely HAS to initiate a lawsuit in order to comply with IP law.  Acuschnet might be overly aggressive and might be doing this to prevent a much lower priced ball from driving down what the free market is otherwise willing to pay, but that's just decent and IMO perfectly ethical business practice.

Costco, on the other hand, could potentially be a bully.  They may knowingly be violating IP rights.  But, I personally think that there is no reason for Costco to want to enter murky waters.  If they did this, they at least think that they are following the law.

 

[1badbadger]

On 3/22/2017 at 2:29 PM, Lihu said:

Acushnet apparently bullied many smaller ball companies out of the market in the past. I wonder what Nassau is doing, or do they have to do anything?

 

On 3/22/2017 at 2:49 PM, iacas said:

Bullied is one way of looking at it. If Titleist patents and IP were not infringed, then that would have been bullying, because they likely knew those smaller companies couldn't afford to fight them. And maybe it was, since Vice, KickX, and a few others are still around.

"Enforced their patents" is another way of putting it, and it would not be "bullying" to enforce their patents. So if those balls did infringe, then Titleist wasn't being a bully at all, really.

Titleist has traditionally been very "sue-happy".  I have no problem with a company aggressively protecting it's IP,  and Titleist has done that in the past, but they have also aggressively infringed on other company's IP as well.    

But what I don't like is their claim that Costco is engaged in false advertising "based on its Kirkland Signature guarantee that all Kirkland Signature products “meet or exceed the quality standards of leading national brands.”  Can Titleist prove this isn't true?

A number of years ago when Bridgestone began using the tag-line :#1 Ball Fitter In Golf, Titleist filed a suit to prevent them from making this claim and using it in their advertising.  A lot of time and money was spent unnecessarily to fight it, and B-Stone won, but it was a bully move in my opinion. 

[Lihu]

5 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

 

Titleist has traditionally been very "sue-happy".  I have no problem with a company aggressively protecting it's IP,  and Titleist has done that in the past, but they have also aggressively infringed on other company's IP as well.    

But what I don't like is their claim that Costco is engaged in false advertising "based on its Kirkland Signature guarantee that all Kirkland Signature products “meet or exceed the quality standards of leading national brands.”  Can Titleist prove this isn't true?

A number of years ago when Bridgestone began using the tag-line :#1 Ball Fitter In Golf, Titleist filed a suit to prevent them from making this claim and using it in their advertising.  A lot of time and money was spent unnecessarily to fight it, and B-Stone won, but it was a bully move in my opinion. 

Wow, I hope there's more substance to their suit?

If not, it might be time to switch to Bridgestone.

[DaveP043]

15 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

But what I don't like is their claim that Costco is engaged in false advertising "based on its Kirkland Signature guarantee that all Kirkland Signature products “meet or exceed the quality standards of leading national brands.”  Can Titleist prove this isn't true?

I'm no legal expert, but since Costco initiated the suit, don't they have to prove their claim?  It seems that the burden of proof is on the party that initiates the legal proceedings.

[jkelley9]

Just have to say, I'm still using these balls. I've done a lot better at not losing them this season 

However, I'm having some nasty luck (more like I just suck!) with cart paths so these balls are taking a BEATING. They've held up pretty nicely though, I have to say.

I think the urethane covers on these are slightly softer than the ProV1. I think they get damaged a LITTLE bit faster. Personally, I don't give a flip. I love the soft feel and these things are going far (for me) in terms of distance. 

I have 4 dozen left of the K-sigs, I think. Hopefully they'll last me well into summer. I also really hope that their next line of ball is equal in performance of this one. I don't want to have to start buying ProV1  I'd probably just start buying used bridgestones again or something.

[boogielicious]

On 4/3/2017 at 8:15 AM, DaveP043 said:

I'm no legal expert, but since Costco initiated the suit, don't they have to prove their claim?  It seems that the burden of proof is on the party that initiates the legal proceedings.

Claims don't necessarily have to be proven by the defendant or plaintiff per se unless it is specifically cited. But there are other ways to make a company defend claims besides a lawsuit.

Claiming "Best" or #1 is difficult to defend without a lot of data. And it can lead to both good and bad results for a company. It can expose crappy data used to make the claim. It can also lead to discovery of other shady things. Or it can lead to a lot of good things.

30+ years ago P&G sued Listerine for the claim, "Kills germs that cause bad breath". The judge in the case deferred a ruling and gave Listerine a year to gather more data. They came back with proof of the claim and many other benefits such as prevents gingivitis, etc., which they would not have researched unless they had this suit. So it backfired big time for P&G.

[1badbadger]

On 4/3/2017 at 7:15 AM, DaveP043 said:

I'm no legal expert, but since Costco initiated the suit, don't they have to prove their claim?  It seems that the burden of proof is on the party that initiates the legal proceedings.

I'm not a legal expert by any means either, so I went back and double-checked the basis of the suit.  You're correct that Costco initiated the suit.  They claim the reason is because Acushnet has wrongfully accused Costco of patent infringement and false advertising.  So I guess Titleist didn't legally make these accusations, as in stating it in a lawsuit, but is publicly making statements about it?

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

I'm not a legal expert by any means either, so I went back and double-checked the basis of the suit.  You're correct that Costco initiated the suit.  They claim the reason is because Acushnet has wrongfully accused Costco of patent infringement and false advertising.  So I guess Titleist didn't legally make these accusations, as in stating it in a lawsuit, but is publicly making statements about it?

My current understanding is that it wasn't even public - it was in a private letter to Costco. No?

[DaveP043]

27 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

I'm not a legal expert by any means either, so I went back and double-checked the basis of the suit.  You're correct that Costco initiated the suit.  They claim the reason is because Acushnet has wrongfully accused Costco of patent infringement and false advertising.  So I guess Titleist didn't legally make these accusations, as in stating it in a lawsuit, but is publicly making statements about it?

 

24 minutes ago, iacas said:

My current understanding is that it wasn't even public - it was in a private letter to Costco. No?

My understanding is the same as @iacas, and Costco decided to fire the first public shot.  

[jkelley9]

I take it with this whole suit thing that Costco won't have another set of balls on their site/shelves for quite some time? I really don't want to have to go back to buying used balls  Although I guess things have changed since I lose a lot less now so MAYBE I'd be on board with buying Snell or something. I think I still have 4 dozen left so I hope there's some type of new Costco (premium quality) ball on their shelves by then. I'm a cheap son of a gun!

[Lihu]

51 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

I take it with this whole suit thing that Costco won't have another set of balls on their site/shelves for quite some time? I really don't want to have to go back to buying used balls  Although I guess things have changed since I lose a lot less now so MAYBE I'd be on board with buying Snell or something. I think I still have 4 dozen left so I hope there's some type of new Costco (premium quality) ball on their shelves by then. I'm a cheap son of a gun!

I don't think the current plan will be affected. I'll try to pick up some of them as well. They're pretty decent balls.

[dennyjones]

Golf WRX is reporting that Costco in Livonia, MI has a supply of the Kirkland balls.   They are not available online as of 4/6/2017 at 9:30 pm. EST.   From the post, the golf balls have been in other places and sold out quickly.    

[OSSO BUCCO]

Kirkland Signature Golf Balls returned to 40 clubs yesterday. 

[Single Length Irons Guy]

Just ran out to my local Costco and they haven't received any balls. The manager said that two other Costco stores in the area did get 300 units each, but both sold out in less than a day.

[OSSO BUCCO]

It is far easier to call any COSTCO to check.  It is Item # 1081660.  They will also tell you what clubs do have any stock.  I got the last box in the Palm Beach, FL club.