Hue Owns It?: Baylor's Colorful Trademark Clash with Boston University

[1]

Background

On August 8, 2025, Baylor University (“Baylor”) sued the Trustees of Boston University (“Boston”) for trademark infringement over Boston’s use of the interlocking “BU” logo, a trademark registered by Baylor.[2] In 1987, Baylor sought to register its interlocking “BU” within Class 25.[3] Boston opposed Baylor’s trademark application, and a year later, the two universities reached an agreement that allowed both universities to use the “BU” initials.[4] The agreement stipulated that Boston would use the initials “BU” side by side, while Baylor would use an interlocking “BU.”[5] 

The complaint states that in 2018, Baylor learned of Boston’s use of the interlocking “BU” logo on merchandise sold in Boston’s “Campus Spirit Shop.”[6] Baylor objected to Boston’s use of the logo in late 2021; however, Boston continued to use the interlocking “BU”.[7] Following the objection, Boston’s use of the logo expanded to more products within the “Campus Spirit Shop,” and the university’s club sports teams began using the logo.[8] The complaint further alleges that the interlocking “BU” logo now appears on Boston’s branding guidelines.[9] Baylor argues that Boston’s use of the logo will confuse consumers and allow Boston to “receive the benefit and goodwill built up at great labor and expense by Baylor.”[10]

What is at Issue

Baylor makes two relevant claims: federal trademark infringement and federal unfair competition.[11] For the first claim, Baylor alleges that Boston violated Section 32 of the Lanham Act.[12] This claim requires that Boston’s use of the interlocking “BU” logo on merchandise is “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive [consumers].”[13] 

Courts typically evaluate the “likelihood of confusion” by considering factors such as the similarity of the two marks, evidence that the marks appear in the same market, and evidence of actual confusion among consumers.[14] Baylor can argue that the almost identical appearance of the marks and their use in similar collegiate apparel exemplify likelihood of confusion, especially for fans and alumni purchasing merchandise.[15] 

For the second claim, Baylor alleges that Boston violated Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.[16] This claim requires that any person using a symbol in commerce under a false designation of origin, which is likely to cause confusion or deception as to affiliation or origin, will be liable to “any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.”[17] 

Section 43(a) also applies to unregistered marks and focuses on false or misleading representations of affiliation.[18] Baylor’s argument rests on the idea that Boston’s use of interlocking “BU” falsely suggests a connection between the two universities.[19] Boston may raise defenses, such as acquiescence, arguing that Baylor’s delay in objecting until 2021 undermines its claim.[20] 

Baylor seeks an injunction permanently enjoining Boston’s use of the logo, the delivery and destruction of all Boston’s goods bearing the logo, a report showing their cooperation, and the recovery of costs for the action and any other relief the court finds appropriate.[21]

Possible Resolution

A strikingly similar dispute arose in the 1970s between NBC and the Nebraska Educational Television Commission (NETV), when NETV sued NBC over NBC’s use of an identical logo that differed only by color.[22] The parties settled, and NBC bought the right to use the logo from NETV.[23] The two cases share a very similar dispute, possibly suggesting a similar resolution.[24] Given that Baylor and Boston have previously disputed the same issue, it seems plausible that the two would eventually settle or reach a new agreement.[25]

Trademark doctrine and practice recognize that coexistence agreements can be a practical means of managing similar marks, though they may become outdated as brands evolve.[26] Courts and practitioners alike often view renegotiation, rather than prolonged litigation, as a way to balance both parties’ legitimate interests.[27] Accordingly, Baylor and Boston may seek to modify their 1988 agreement to clarify context, color, or usage limitations, thereby preventing consumer confusion while maintaining each university’s distinct identity.

Ultimately, this case highlights the challenges of maintaining distinct brand identities in higher education and may clarify how courts interpret decades-old trademark agreements in a modern context.

References

[1] Photo by Donald Guy Robinson on Unsplash, https://unsplash.com/photos/a-couple-of-banners-hanging-from-the-side-of-a-building-w3lOfgkUkHM.  

[2] See John Leuzzi, Baylor University sues Boston University for Trademark Infringement on BU Logo, USA Today, https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2025/08/11/baylor-lawsuit-boston-university-logo-trademark-infringement/85617241007/  (last visited (Aug. 11, 2025) (explaining the Baylor lawsuit).

[3] See Baylor Compl. ¶ 19.

[4] See id.

[5] See id. ¶ 21.

[6] See id. ¶ 23.

[7] See id. ¶ ¶ 24, 25.

[8] See id. ¶ ¶ 26, 27.

[9] See id. ¶ ¶ 27.

[10] See id. ¶ ¶ 28, 35.

[11] See id. ¶ 3.

[12] See 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (West).

[13] See id.

[14] See id.

[15] See University of Georgia Athletic Ass’n v. Laite, 756 F.2d 1535, 1546 (11th Cir. 1985) (holding beer label using bulldog logo was similar to University of Georgia’s infringed university’s mark due to likelihood of confusion among fans).

[16] See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (West).

[17] See id.

[18] See id.

[19] See id.

[20] See Sara Lee Corp. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 81 F.3d 455, 462 (4th Cir. 1996)

[21] See Baylor Compl., “Prayer,” ¶ a-e.

[22] See Nebraska Agency and NBC Settle Dispute on Logotype, New York Times. (March 6, 1976), https://www.nytimes.com/1976/03/06/archives/nebraska-agency-and-nbc-settle-dispute-on-logotype.html.

[23] See id.

[24] See id.

[25] See Leuzzi, supra note 2.

[26] See J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §§ 18:79–18:81 (5th ed. 2024).

[27] See Int’l Trademark Ass’n, Coexistence Agreements: A Guide for Brand Owners (2018).