Imagine the word Columbia emblazoned on a cozy hoodie or hat. Does it evoke a rugged outdoor reputation for you? Or elite academia? That is exactly what Columbia Sportswear and Columbia University are hashing out in court right now.
What Is Going On?
In June 2023, the two entities entered into a written co-existence agreement. As long as it appeared alongside recognizable university branding such as the shield, lion mascot, the word "University," a department name (e.g., "Columbia Law"), or even the founding year, 1754, Columbia University was allowed to use the name "Columbia" on apparel. In return, Columbia Sportswear agreed not to sue the university for trademark conflicts.
Fast-forward to 2024, however, and the clothing company alleges they discovered items on the university's webstore featuring just "Columbia" – without any of the required identifiers. Some items even used a shade of blue strikingly similar to Columbia Sportswear's signature hue and bore Nike or Champion logos, arguably increasing the risk of consumer confusion.
The Legal Grounds at Play
Because of this, Columbia Sportswear filed suit in July 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, claiming:
- Breach of contract (alleging the university failed to adhere to the agreement's terms),
- Trademark infringement, and
- Unfair competition.
The brand is seeking a jury trial, injunctive relief to prevent future improper use, a recall of infringing items, donation of unsold goods, and monetary damages that could potentially be tripled for willful violations.
This dispute underscores a key lesson in trademark law: even friendly or seemingly straightforward agreements (like coexistence deals) must be meticulously followed. Failing to do so erodes brand clarity and can lead to expensive disputes.
From Columbia Sportswear's standpoint, "Columbia" unmistakably identifies their rugged outerwear reputation. Unauthorized or confusing use erodes that meaning and damages consumer trust.
From the university's view, they could argue that as a centuries-old institution, they have a prior claim to the name and could challenge the enforcement of a letter-based agreement.
What Can We Learn from This Agreement-Turned-Fight?
Clarity is essential. Contracts governing trademarks must be precise: outlining acceptable uses, branding requirements, colors, and even distribution channels.
Letter agreements can be risky. Quite simply, relying on a signed letter (vs. a formal, detailed contract) invites uncertainty about enforceability.
Proactive monitoring matters. If Columbia Sportswear identified violations in 2024 and attempted resolution before litigation, that is textbook enforcement – and it should strengthen their case.
Even non-profit institutions must navigate IP carefully. Universities increasingly monetize branding, making them subject to the same legal dynamics as commercial entities.
Big-picture takeaway? This case illustrates how even a shared name can spark legal controversy when brand identities collide. It is a textbook example for anyone involved in IP: negotiate carefully, document clearly, monitor actively, and always err on the side of clarity to avoid confusion.
Whether you are a business, university, or creator, the clarity of your brand's identity is worth protecting. Need help? I am happy to talk.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
