Intellectual Property: Pepperdine University’s Trademark Dispute

Written by Akhil Adusumilli,  Marsela Shalabi, Shriya Reddy, Nela Labuzek, and Michael Bennett

Edited by Akhil Adusumilli and Anna Ramesh

In February 2025, Pepperdine University filed a lawsuit against entertainment giants Netflix and Warner Bros. over Trademark Infringement, using a trademark without permission, within a new Netflix series called Running Point. The issue arises when a basketball team within the show known as the "Waves" had the same colors as Pepperdine's Logo, to which the University claims could confuse and harm its brand. The show also has elements that go against the University's Christian values, such as inappropriate jokes and sexual references.

In 1937, when Pepperdine was founded, it branded their's basketball team as the "Waves" while utilizing its iconic blue and orange colors. Recently, when Netflix announced its new series, Running Point, it displayed a basketball team in California named the "Waves" with similar colors. Initially, Pepperdine University contacted Netflix and Warner Bros regarding the branding concerns, only to be denied any solution. This outcome led the University to file a temporary restraining order (TRO) in February 2025 against the show's release through a federal court. A TRO is a temporary hold on distribution, in this case prohibiting the distribution of this show. However, the court blocked this motion, citing the 1st amendment.

Current litigation now consists of an injunction, financial damages, and corrective actions. An injunction is a court order that is used to stop the use of the disputed logo. Corrective Actions are being used to dissociate the show from the University through changing the logos and color schemes.

We have seen similar cases that represent the same impact as the Pepperdine University lawsuit against Netflix and Warner Bros. In Fairstein v. Netflix Inc. et al, Lina Fairstein filed a lawsuit against Netflix and director Ava DuVernay over her portrayal in the miniseries "When They See Us," which came out in 2019. Fairstein is a former prosecutor in the Central Park Five case, which was very controversial at the time. The miniseries revolved around the convictions of five Latino and Black teenagers in the 1989 Central Park jogger case. Fairstein alleged that the series depicted her as a racist, unethical villain, causing damage to her reputation.

Originally, Netflix and Duvernay attempted to have the case dismissed, however, the court allowed the defamation claims to proceed. Specifically, one of misconduct, while dismissing others as pure opinion. The court emphasized the importance of context in evaluating whether the statements could have a defamatory meaning. The lawsuit was resolved in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with Judge P. Kevin Castel presiding. Before the case proceeded to trial, the parties settled in June 2024. Under the terms of the agreement, Netflix pledged a $1 million donation to the Innocence Project and agreed to include a disclaimer in the series, noting that some characters and events were dramatized. While Linda Fairstein did not receive financial compensation, she stated that the settlement was focused on addressing the damage to her public image.

The decision makers in Pepperdine University v. Netflix and Warner Bros. differ from those in earlier cases, such as Fairstein v. Netflix Inc. While Fairstein's case was decided in the Southern District of New York by Judge P. Kevin Castel, the Pepperdine case is being decided in the Central District of California before U.S. District Judge Maria Gutierrez. Judge Gutierrez is reportedly strict in upholding First Amendment protections, particularly in entertainment and artistic expression. This was evident in February 2025 when she denied Pepperdine's motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the release of Netflix's Running Point. She ruled that Pepperdine did not provide adequate evidence that the show would cause "irreparable harm" or consumer confusion, which are requirements in trademark infringement cases. In trademark law, proving "irreparable harm" demonstrates that the alleged infringement would cause harm that monetary damages, such as enduring reputational damage, cannot rectify. "Consumer confusion" refers to the likelihood that a reasonable viewer would mistake the fictional program for being sponsored by or affiliated with the trademark owner. Courts necessitate clear, substantial evidence to justify injunctive relief, such as a Temporary Restraining Order. Her decision reflects a broader judicial movement to protect works of fiction from trademark infringement unless the usage is directly misleading. In other similar instances, Judge Gutierrez has employed legal reasoning under the Rogers test, which balances trademark protection and free speech. The Rogers v. Grimaldi test permits expressive works like movies and TV shows to use trademarks without liability if the usage is artistically relevant and not misleading. It reconciles First Amendment rights with the protections of trademark owners. Courts require proof that the use lacks artistic significance or intends to mislead consumers regarding official endorsement by the trademark owner.

Based on her previous rulings, Judge Gutierrez is likely to rule again in favor of Warner Bros. and Netflix unless Pepperdine can convincingly demonstrate that the similarities such as the name of the basketball team "Waves," the orange and blue color scheme, or the California location are causing public confusion or damaging the university's reputation. These grounds are broad or circumstantial, and the courts typically avoid stifling creative content over general similarities unless there is concrete proof of copying or ill will. Netflix and Warner Bros. argue that these design choices are normative in sporting contexts and are not specific enough to be considered trademark infringement. They further assert that the series is entirely fictional and does not seek to portray Pepperdine. Finally, the judge's early rejection of the TRO indicates that the court views Running Point as free speech and not as a deliberate misappropriation of Pepperdine's identity. Suppose Pepperdine cannot show measurable harm, such as a tangible decline in student enrollment, financial losses related to brand confusion, or expert-backed evidence of reputational damage from the show. In that case, its claims are unlikely to succeed. Without substantial consumer deception, such as surveys or marketing studies indicating that viewers genuinely believe the fictional "Waves" basketball team is affiliated with Pepperdine, the court will likely find that the Netflix series Running Point does not violate trademark laws. This case raises the question of whether a fictional portrayal with coincidental similarities can cause actual damage, potentially setting a significant legal precedent against institutional trademark suits, particularly from universities attempting to control their public image through legal actions. A ruling in favor of Netflix and Warner Bros. would reinforce protections for creative liberty, affirming that fictional works can employ culturally familiar elements like team names, color schemes, or geographical references without risking litigation, as long as they do not deliberately mislead the audience. This balance is crucial in artistic expression, with courts increasingly favoring free speech over broad claims of trademark ownership.

This decision will have profound implications for society. It will pave the way for the entertainment industry to expand its influence and use society as a tool for self-benefit by prioritizing creative content over concerns about trademark infringements. In other words, this decision gives more leeway to companies to use external trademarks to fit their fictional narrative while disregarding the effects it will have on the source from which they obtained it. For instance, even if it's meant to be a fictional portrayal, the institutions affected can be portrayed disadvantageously, misleading consumers when perceiving the institution in real life. Hence, it is vital for Pepperdine, as a Christian university, to protect its trademark and identity, as Running Point deviates from its values by promoting vulgar themes. As such, this hurts the university's reputation, which in turn may facilitate low admissions due to rising students thinking the university is affiliated with that type of behavior and disincentivizes them from joining. Therefore, Pepperdine's motivation for taking this issue to court is rightfully justified, as it shows how an established institution takes action against well-known corporations for using its trademark without acquiring proper authorization in the first place.

The ruling is thought-provoking, to say the least, considering the court ruled against Pepperdine University. It goes to show the significant influence powerful entertainment industries such as Netflix and Warner Bros. can have on decision-making. It is unfair to assume that consumers will not reasonably believe Running Point is affiliated with Pepperdine. If Individuals are familiar with the university and its background, it can be concluded that there is some resemblance. By way of illustration, the colors blue and orange can indeed be used by other groups, not just athletic programs; however, it can not be a mere coincidence that the show also takes place in Los Angeles and assigns the number 37 to an athlete, which is the number that the university's mascot associates with. These may not be significant reasons, but when looking at it through another lens and considering the storyline of Running Point, it is evident that Netflix and Warner Bros. used the university for inspiration and ultimately took inspiration from the institution. Thus, this indicates that the court prioritized creative content when emphasizing that mere similarities in branding or colors are not enough to confuse consumers unless there is an evident misrepresentation of the source.

Essentially, the ruling signifies a disregard for the university's intellectual property and reputation, which is witnessed in Running Point for how it unfavorably presents Pepperdine. Also, it does not help that Netflix and Warner Bros. are unresponsive to Pepperdine in resolving this issue. This reveals a lack of concern for these allegations by ascertaining the sway of big businesses. Hence, these big corporations such as Netflix and Warner Bros may bring significant implications for their entanglement with society in the years to come, by having the ability to influence policies and consumerism.