Golden Globes v. Golden Globe Foundation: Inside the Trademark Fight Over the Globes' Own Charity

The company that owns the Golden Globes is suing the charity that was created out of the same 2023 deal that put the awards in private hands. On September 30, 2026, Golden Globes, LLC (formerly Eldridge Globes, LLC) filed a trademark complaint in Los Angeles federal court against the Golden Globe Foundation, the nonprofit that took over the charitable work of the old Hollywood Foreign Press Association. The owner wants the foundation to stop using the words "Golden Globe," including in its own name. The case is Golden Globes, LLC v. Golden Globe Foundation, No. 2:26-cv-11375, in the Central District of California, and it has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder. Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter and others have covered the fight, which the foundation's board president called a "transparent attempt to pressure the Foundation."

This is more than awards-season gossip. It shows what happens when a sale moves a brand from one owner to another and nobody puts in writing who keeps the right to use the name afterward.

How the Globes and the foundation split apart

The complaint tells the backstory from the owner's point of view, and it doesn't flatter the HFPA. It walks through the scandals of the 2010s and the February 2021 Los Angeles Times reporting that the HFPA had "no Black members." It then describes NBC's May 2021 decision not to air the 2022 show, which the complaint calls "an existential threat" to the HFPA. Facing an industry boycott, the HFPA decided to sell.

According to the complaint:

• The sale. Under an Asset Purchase Agreement dated September 15, 2022, among the plaintiff, the HFPA, the HFPA Charitable Trust and Todd Boehly's Eldridge Industries, the buyer acquired the "Golden Globes IP," including "the 'Golden Globes' and 'Golden Globe Awards' name and logo and other Trademarks related to the Golden Globes." The deal closed in June 2023. The plaintiff's notice of interested parties lists Penske Media Corporation, PME TopCo, Eldridge Media Holdings and Eldridge Industries as its owners.
• The registrations. The plaintiff relies on U.S. Registration Nos. 2,424,703, 2,381,145 and 2,422,897 for entertainment awards and ceremonies. It says all three are incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065.
• The foundation. The Golden Globe Foundation (GGF) was created in May 2023, "in connection with the overall transaction," as a 501(c)(4) to carry on the HFPA's charitable work. At closing, the parties discussed whether the owner would license the GOLDEN GLOBE name to GGF. The complaint says "those discussions ultimately failed to produce an agreement on acceptable terms."

So the foundation has used "Golden Globe" since it was created, and it never signed a license. According to the complaint, the foundation's own website says the Golden Globe marks are "the registered trademarks and service marks... of Golden Globes, LLC."

The cease-and-desist, the "coup" and the breakdown

The complaint gives this timeline:

1. August 7, 2025: The owner's counsel sends a cease-and-desist demanding that GGF "immediately and permanently cease and desist from any further use of the GOLDEN GLOBE mark," and offers a short transition period for GGF to choose a new name.
2. August 22, 2025: GGF's counsel refuses.
3. August 2025 to July 2026: The two sides negotiate a license, and the complaint says they "appeared to be making progress."
4. July 2026: GGF elects Raffi Boghosian as board president. The complaint says that in what press reports called a "coup," GGF then fired founding CEO Gregory Goeckner, Boghosian became interim CEO, and GGF dropped the outside counsel who had been negotiating the license.
5. After that: According to the complaint, Boghosian "directed and authorized the expansion" of the use, including developing "Golden Globe merchandise."

The complaint also ties the case to a second lawsuit. On July 28, 2026, the HFPA, which still exists as a legal entity, sued Jay Penske, Penske Media, the Golden Globe Foundation and Goeckner in Hollywood Foreign Press Association v. Penske, No. 2:26-cv-08288 (C.D. Cal.), before Judge John A. Kronstadt. Press reports describe it as an antitrust challenge (along with other claims) to the 2023 sale that seeks at least $150 million and the unwinding of the deal. The trademark complaint alleges, "on information and belief," that GGF and the HFPA are finalizing a settlement that would move charitable funds from GGF to the HFPA, and that naming GGF as a defendant was "a pretext" to "redirect charitable funds to finance the HFPA's lawsuit." No court has made any finding about this, and the foundation hasn't answered it publicly.

The four claims

The complaint was filed by Rollin A. Ransom, Eric B. Schwartz, Nicole M. Baade and Jessica Joyce of Sidley Austin. It makes four claims:

1. Federal trademark infringement under Lanham Act § 32, 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
2. False designation of origin under § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The theory is that people will assume the foundation's grants, dinners, auctions and events are sponsored or approved by the Globes.
3. California statutory unfair competition under Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
4. California common-law trademark infringement and unfair competition.

The owner asks for a preliminary and permanent injunction, GGF's profits and the owner's actual damages ("trebled"), attorneys' fees on the ground that this is an "exceptional case," and a jury trial. Unlike many brand complaints, it doesn't include a dilution claim, even though it calls GOLDEN GLOBE "among the most famous and valuable entertainment-industry trademarks in the world."

The foundation's side

The foundation hasn't filed a substantive response that we've seen. Its public position, as reported by Law Commentary, is that the charity was "established through the same transaction" that sold the show, and that the commercial owners used to support it. The foundation points out that the Golden Globes' president welcomed guests at its first grants dinner, where it gave $5 million to 96 organizations, and that Penske Media's Robb Report supported that event. In an October 1 email to members, Boghosian said the foundation would fight the claims in court.

Who has the stronger case?

On paper, the owner starts out ahead:

• Identical mark, related services. Ninth Circuit courts decide likelihood of confusion with the AMF v. Sleekcraft Boats factors. When the marks are identical, the services overlap (entertainment-industry events and fundraising) and the audience is the same (Hollywood), most of those factors favor the mark owner.
• Incontestable registrations. Under § 1065 the foundation can't argue that the marks are merely descriptive or that the owner lacks rights in them.
• The website admission. It's hard to claim the name as your own when your website says someone else owns it.
• Nonprofits are covered too. Trademark law isn't limited to companies that sell products. Courts have long held that charitable, political and membership services are "services" under the Lanham Act. The Second Circuit said so in United We Stand America, Inc. v. United We Stand, America New York, Inc. (1997). Auctions and merchandise make GGF's activities look even more commercial.
• The presumption of irreparable harm. Since the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020, a trademark owner who shows likely success on the merits gets a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm (15 U.S.C. § 1116(a)). That makes a preliminary injunction more realistic than it was ten years ago.

But the foundation has real arguments, and most of them come from the deal itself:

• Implied license and acquiescence. If the buyer knowingly let a charity named "Golden Globe Foundation" form as part of its own acquisition, then supported the foundation's events for two years, the foundation can argue the owner consented by its conduct. Acquiescence requires affirmative words or actions that signal consent, and a company president welcoming guests to a "Golden Globe Foundation" grants dinner is the kind of evidence a court will weigh. The owner will respond that consent given while a license was under negotiation isn't a perpetual free license, and that any implied permission ended with the August 2025 cease-and-desist.
• The contract itself. Only §§ 1.1 and 2.1(a) of the Purchase Agreement are quoted in the complaint. The foundation will look in the rest of the deal documents for anything about its name: a transition clause, a side letter, a closing condition. The owner says no license exists, but a judge will read the whole agreement.
• Delay. The foundation has used the name since mid-2023. The owner didn't send a demand until August 2025 and didn't sue until September 2026. Delay alone rarely defeats an injunction against ongoing infringement, but it can weaken the argument that a preliminary injunction is urgent.
• Fair use of history. Even if the foundation loses its name, it can probably still state the truth: that it continues the charitable work of the former HFPA, which founded the Golden Globes in 1944. That kind of nominative or descriptive reference isn't infringement. The fight is over using GOLDEN GLOBE as a name and brand.

The most likely outcome is a rebrand with a transition period, which the owner offered back in 2025. A full trial seems unlikely. The HFPA's $150 million case is the bigger risk for Penske and Eldridge, and that pressure will shape any settlement.

What happens next

The docket shows the complaint, the civil cover sheet, the notice of interested parties and the required report to the USPTO, all filed September 30, followed by later entries in October. We haven't seen a preliminary-injunction motion on the public docket yet. Watch for three things: whether the foundation moves to dismiss or relate this case to the HFPA's case before Judge Kronstadt, whether the owner seeks an injunction before the 2027 Globes season gets going, and whether the reported HFPA–GGF settlement surfaces in either docket.

This isn't the first time the Globes have ended up in this courthouse. In 2010 the HFPA sued Red Zone Capital, then the owner of Dick Clark Productions, in a fight over control of the show. Follow the parties on IP Feed: Penske Media and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. For another entertainment-brand dispute in the same district, see the Christian metal band Demon Hunter's trademark case against Netflix over KPop Demon Hunters, and browse our trademark lawsuit tracker.

What this means for filmmakers

Most indie producers will never own an awards show. Many of them, though, will sell a company, merge a production shingle, wind down a festival or hand a film's brand to a distributor. The Globes fight is a warning about what happens when a sale leaves the name unresolved.

• Decide who keeps the name before closing. The foundation was created "in connection with" the sale, but the license was left for later. Later turned into three years of uncertainty and a federal lawsuit. If any spin-off, nonprofit arm, fan community or legacy company will keep using a name you're selling, put the license (or the rebrand deadline) in the closing documents.
• Know what your chain of title covers. Trademarks, titles, logos and characters can transfer separately from the copyright in a film. When you sell or license a project, list every name and mark that moves, and every use that stays with you.
• Friendly cooperation can turn into a legal defense. A smiling welcome at a gala became evidence of implied consent. If you're letting someone use your brand while you negotiate, say so in writing and say it can be revoked.
• Use awards marks carefully. "Golden Globe nominee" on a poster is a truthful statement and is generally fine. The laurel artwork and statuette design belong to the rights holder, and festivals and awards bodies have their own rules for using them. Follow those rules.
• Brand disputes follow money disputes. This lawsuit grew out of a fight over who got paid in the 2023 sale. Clear rights records and transparent revenue reporting to every stakeholder are the best way to keep a business disagreement from becoming a trademark case.

Follow the docket on CourtListener, and we'll cover major rulings here.

This post is editorial commentary on public court filings and news coverage, not legal advice. Golden Globes, LLC's allegations, including its allegations about the HFPA and about Raffi Boghosian, have not been proven, and the Golden Globe Foundation has not yet responded in court. Quotes from the complaint are taken from the filing in No. 2:26-cv-11375 (C.D. Cal.). Background details about the HFPA's separate lawsuit and the foundation's response come from press reports and may be clarified as the cases proceed.