Art may imitate life, but two prestigious universities may wish that it didn’t. In recent weeks, Pepperdine University and Duke University have both taken issue with Warner Bros. due to trademarks featured in two of the production company’s recent popular shows, Running Point and The White Lotus. The universities’ unique situations present an interesting trademark enforcement question: what can a trademark owner do when their mark, or a confusingly similar mark, is used prominently in a TV show without authorization? We break down each of the cases below and discuss the enforcement implications for each university.
Pepperdine University v. Netflix Inc. and Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01429 (C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 20, 2025).
This case revolves around Netflix’s new show Running Point, which follows a retired party girl as she unexpectedly takes over as president of the professional basketball team that her family owns. The show is loosely based on the life of one of its producers, Jeanie Buss, whose family has owned the Los Angeles Lakers since the 1970s.
Rather than using the Lakers’ name and branding, Netflix and Warner Bros. opted to create a fictional team called the Los Angeles Waves. The show avoids the purple and yellow colors of the Lakers in favor of blue and orange branding. The problem: the Waves are not, in fact, a fictional team. Pepperdine University, a private Christian school based in Malibu, has referred to its athletics program as the WAVES for decades and also uses blue and orange branding.
Due to these similarities, Pepperdine has sued Netflix and Warner Bros. in the Central District of California, arguing that the show’s use of the WAVES trademark, the colors blue and orange, and other trademarks and branding are all confusingly similar to the marks used by its athletic programs. Complaint at 25-27, Pepperdine University v. Netflix Inc. and Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01429 (C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 20, 2025). What’s more, Pepperdine has also claimed that the themes explored in the show — such as alcohol and drug use, “foul language,” and “sexually charged images and dialog” — are” incongruous with the University’s values. Id. at 20-22.
Examples of Netflix’s use (left) compared to Pepperdine’s use (right).
Complaint at 15, 17, Pepperdine University v. Netflix Inc. and Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01429 (C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 20, 2025).
Overall, Pepperdine’s complaint contains federal claims of direct and contributory trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, and false advertising, as well as state law claims of trademark dilution, deceptive business practices, and unfair competition. The complaint was filed after the show’s trailer premiered but before the episodes were released, so the university sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the show’s scheduled release.
Unfortunately for Pepperdine, the case currently seems like more of slam dunk for Netflix and Warner Bros. The court denied Pepperdine’s request for a temporary restraining order after determining that, under the test laid out in Rogers v. Grimaldi, the Lanham Act does not apply in this scenario because the use of the WAVES mark is artistically relevant to the show and does not explicitly mislead consumers as to the source of the series. In its decision, the court plainly stated, “Pepperdine cannot succeed on its claims for trademark infringement and false designation of origin.” Order Denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order at 8, Pepperdine University v. Netflix Inc. and Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01429 (C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 20, 2025).
So why did Pepperdine decide to file a formal lawsuit in this scenario when their chances of success were so low? The university likely wanted to maintain a strong enforcement record of its trademark portfolio while also sending a message to other potential infringers that Pepperdine actively polices the use of its trademarks and similar marks by third parties. Furthermore, Pepperdine may be attempting to prevent potential long-term harm to its brand, as the show’s ultimate duration is unknown, meaning Netflix’s use of the WAVES mark and branding could go on for years. Indeed, as of this writing, Running Point has been renewed for a second season, meaning the use of the fictional team’s branding will likely continue.
Despite Pepperdine’s recent loss in court, the University has stated it “will continue to protect its legacy and brand from any unauthorized or misleading depictions.” Press Release, Pepperdine Univ., Pepperdine to Continue Defense of Waves Trademark Against Netflix, Warner Bros. Infringement (Feb. 26, 2025) (on file with author).
Duke University v. Warner Bros.
In a similar scenario, Duke University has also taken aim at Warner Bros. over another one of the company’s shows, The White Lotus. The third season of the HBO smash-hit features a wealthy family whose patriarch is on the verge of financial ruin. In several episodes, the father — who is an alumnus of Duke — contemplates various violent acts while wearing a shirt emblazoned with the Duke brand.
While the season was airing, Duke made claims similar to Pepperdine’s, stating that “characters prominently wearing apparel bearing Duke’s federally registered trademarks creates confusion and mistakenly suggests an endorsement or affiliation where none exists.” Hannah Miller and Janet Lorin, ‘White Lotus’ Goes Too Far With Trademark, Duke Says, Bloomberg (March 25, 2025, 4:47 PM). Due to the graphic depictions of violence in the show, the university also stated that the mark is used “on imagery that is troubling, does not reflect our values or who we are, and simply goes too far.” Id.
Unlike Pepperdine, Duke has not filed a formal complaint against Warner Bros., which may seem odd given the similarities between the two cases. From a trademark enforcement perspective, it seems unlikely that Duke will file suit against Warner Bros. because the mark at issue may never be featured in The White Lotus again due to the show’s anthological nature. So far, each season of the show has featured almost an entirely new cast, which suggests that the Duke alumnus character and his shirt may not appear again. For this reason, Duke may take no enforcement action at all or may prefer to keep its objection limited to a formal statement condemning the use of the trademark or a behind-the-scenes warning letter.
Takeaways
Trademark enforcement comes in many different shapes and sizes, and while an enforcement action may not always result in a resounding victory, it can still be an effective tool for trademark owners. Pepperdine’s lawsuit and Duke’s statements are great examples of losing the battle but winning the war. For the universities, the battle was allegedly having their trademarks featured prominently in shows without their permission in contexts that they perceived as negative. While the schools have yet to successfully prevent their marks from being used or receive any redress for the use, they were still able to show the consuming public that they take their trademark rights seriously and actively enforce these rights against those who might seek to infringe them. This is the war.
Mark owners must continuously police and enforce their rights in their trademarks to maintain these rights. If owners aren’t vigilant, they may end up losing their rights in the long run. This means that sometimes it can be beneficial, and even necessary, to pick a fight for the sake of maintaining an enforcement record and sending a message to would-be infringers.
That said, trademark owners must still choose their battles wisely. If you’d like guidance on what battles are worth fighting or have questions about an overall enforcement strategy, our attorneys are here to help. You can learn more about our services on our website, sandsip.com.
By: Haley Holt | hholt@sandsip.com
