Golden Globes LLC and Eldridge filed a federal lawsuit against the Golden Globe Foundation on Sept. 30, escalating a fight over who controls the brand name behind one of Hollywood's longest-running awards shows.

The complaint, lodged in California federal court, asks a judge to bar the nonprofit from using the "Golden Globe" mark and to award unspecified damages. It frames the foundation's identity as a commercial encroachment on the company's property, not a charitable gesture.

A 2022 deal created the Golden Globe Foundation so the Hollywood Foreign Press Association could keep running its charitable work after selling the awards show. Dick Clark Productions and Eldridge bought the ceremony from the HFPA following the 2022 industry boycott. The HFPA now alleges that purchase was a fraudulent move to monopolize the awards market — a separate suit that remains in court.

What does the lawsuit change?

For the foundation, the filing converts a name dispute into a federal trademark claim. The court can now decide whether a nonprofit spun off to handle charitable work can also sell merchandise, host branded events, and license the mark.

The complaint says the foundation's use of the name has "expanded beyond nonprofit work to include selling merchandise, hosting events featuring the brand and engaging in other commercial work." Golden Globes LLC and Eldridge sent a cease-and-desist last year, the filing says, then opened license talks. Those talks ended, the company claims, after the foundation elected Raffi Boghosian as board president earlier this year.

Who is Raffi Boghosian?

Eldridge says Boghosian ordered the firing of former CEO Gregory Goeckner and the lawyer handling the deal talks — a move the complaint reads as "signaling GGF's intent to continue using the Golden Globe mark without authorization." Boghosian and the foundation have not commented in court filings reviewed here. The complaint itself does not detail the foundation's revenue from branded merchandise or quantify the foundation's charitable spending.

Why does the HFPA matter here?

The complaint ties the foundation directly to the HFPA's earlier suit against Penske Media. It claims the HFPA added the foundation as a defendant only to push through a settlement that would transfer charitable funds to the HFPA.

"The HFPA's inclusion of GGF as a defendant was a pretext designed to facilitate this transfer, and the settlement is intended to redirect charitable funds to finance the HFPA's lawsuit and other private disputes against Plaintiff," the complaint states.

It calls the relationship a "broader pattern of coordination between GGF and the HFPA directed against Plaintiff and its affiliates." That coordination, the suit argues, means the foundation's continued use of the mark is "not undertaken in good faith, but rather as part of a concerted effort to trade on the goodwill of Plaintiff's mark."

What is missing?

The complaint does not name a specific dollar figure for damages, nor does it attach a copy of the license proposal that failed. The HFPA, Eldridge, and PMC did not respond to requests for comment before publication, and the foundation has not filed a public response. No trial date appears in the filing.

So what does this change for the race?

The court now controls the brand. If a judge grants the injunction, the foundation loses the right to use the name it was created to carry — a structural shift that, if upheld, would also weaken the HFPA's leverage in its separate fraud suit against the show's current owners.