Woods Sues Builder of Yacht: Tiger Woods is mighty protective of his name and likeness, as I suppose he should be. After all, he is paid tens of millions of dollars each year for appearing in a limited number of ad campaigns for a select clientele (i.e., American Express, Nike). A few years back, he sued an artist over including his likeness in a print called the "Masters of Augusta." In a 2-1 decision, the 6th Circuit affirmed the summary judgment against Woods, stating that the work's historical nature and transformative elements trumped Woods's right to protect his image.



Now, Woods has filed a suit that he seems much more likely to win. In February of this year, Woods purchased a 155-foot yacht from Christensen Shipyards Ltd. The contract for the yacht included a provision that Woods' image and the name of his boat (aptly named "Privacy") could not be used in any advertisement or in any way to promote Christensen. Only if asked could Christensen disclose that he had, in fact, designed the yacht purchased by Woods.



The suit claims that Christensen has breached this agreement. The complaint claims that Christensen created a "widespread national campaign" using Woods' name and photos of the 155-foot yacht. The suit also claims the yacht was used in a display at the Fort Lauderdale Boat Show last month, as well as being featured in the January 2005 issue of ShowBoats International magazine.



The suit asks for an injunction, as well as compensatory damages. While it is hard to feel sorry for anyone with a 155-foot yacht, Woods should be able to protect his image and should definitely not be portrayed as endorsing a product without his permission.



Other Documents:

Motion for a Temporary Injunction

Emergency Motion for an Expedited Hearing



Update: The real question I have in this case, though, has to do with the ownership of the yacht. Woods created a Cayman Islands corporation, Privacy Ltd. The corporation owns the yacht and he is the sole stockholder.



My guess is that this was done to create a liability shield and/or for tax purposes. But anyone that has any specifics on (a) why he might have done this or (b) if it will work, I would be very interested in hearing them.

Posted in: