CATEGORIES

Pepperdine v. Netflix: Court Denies Temporary Restraining Order Over “Waves” Trademark Dispute

3.26.25

In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied Pepperdine University’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Netflix and Warner Bros. in a trademark dispute involving the television series Running Point. The case raises significant questions about the intersection of trademark law and First Amendment protections for expressive works.

Case Background

Pepperdine University, a private Christian institution in Malibu, California, has used the name “Waves” for its athletic teams since its founding in 1937. The university owns three federally registered trademarks for the term “WAVES,” issued between 2002 and 2005, covering various uses related to athletics.

The dispute arose after Netflix and Warner Bros. announced Running Point, a comedic television series created by Mindy Kaling. The show follows a fictional family managing a professional basketball team named the “Los Angeles Waves.” Pepperdine alleged that the use of “Waves” in the series, along with similar colors and design elements, infringed upon its trademarks and could mislead viewers into associating the show with the university. Additionally, Pepperdine expressed concerns that the show’s themes—including substance use, sexual content, and explicit language—would harm its reputation.

The Court’s Analysis and Application of the Rogers Test

In denying the TRO, the Court applied the Rogers v. Grimaldi test, which provides heightened First Amendment protections for expressive works that incorporate trademarks. Under Rogers, a trademark claim cannot proceed unless the plaintiff demonstrates that the use of the mark either:

  1. Has no artistic relevance to the work, or
  2. Explicitly misleads consumers as to the source of the content.

The Court found that Running Point met the first prong of the Rogers test because the use of “Waves” was artistically relevant. The show creators argued that the name was chosen as a nod to the Los Angeles Lakers and the Southern California coastal identity, which the Court found sufficient to satisfy the “more than zero” artistic relevance threshold.

On the second prong, the Court determined that there was no explicit misrepresentation regarding the source of the show. The series is clearly labeled as a Netflix and Warner Bros. production, and neither Pepperdine nor its trademarks are referenced in the show’s branding or title cards. The Court also noted that Running Point includes a disclaimer stating that any similarities to real-life institutions are purely coincidental.

Key Takeaways

  1. Trademark Protection in Expressive Works – The ruling reaffirms that trademark claims involving creative content face a high bar under the Rogers test, which prioritizes First Amendment rights over Lanham Act claims when the trademark is used in an expressive, non-source-identifying manner.
  2. First Amendment Shield for Fictional Works – The Court followed the precedent set by Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, distinguishing between trademarks used for source identification and those used purely for expressive purposes.
  3. Challenges in Proving Consumer Confusion – The Court emphasized that mere similarities in branding, colors, and fonts are insufficient to establish consumer confusion unless there is explicit misrepresentation regarding the source of the work.