In a recent legal skirmish, Pepperdine University attempted to halt the release of Netflix's new sports comedy, "Running Point," due to alleged trademark infringement. Despite the university's efforts, the series debuted as scheduled. The controversy centers around the fictional Los Angeles Waves basketball team in the show, which Pepperdine claims bears an uncanny resemblance to its own branding. This dispute highlights the complexities of intellectual property rights in the entertainment industry and raises questions about consumer confusion and brand dilution.

Details of the Legal Challenge

In the heart of Hollywood, a clash erupted between Pepperdine University and entertainment giants Netflix and Warner Bros. Entertainment over the use of the name "Waves" in the new series "Running Point." On February 20, 2025, Pepperdine filed a lawsuit alleging that the fictitious Los Angeles Waves basketball team mirrored its own sports brand, leading to potential consumer confusion. The university sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the show's airing, arguing that the similarities were too striking to be coincidental. However, a California judge denied this request, allowing "Running Point" to premiere on schedule.

The series, executive-produced by Mindy Kaling, Kate Hudson, and Jeanie Buss, follows Isla Gordon, portrayed by Hudson, as she navigates her role as president of the fictional Los Angeles Waves. The university contended that not only did the team's name and logo resemble its own, but specific elements like player number 37, which correlates to Pepperdine's founding year, further fueled their concerns. Moreover, the university expressed unease over the show's themes, including explicit content and profanity, which they felt clashed with their Christian values.

Reflections on the Case

From a journalistic perspective, this case underscores the delicate balance between artistic freedom and protecting established brands. While trademark law aims to prevent consumer confusion, it also must accommodate creative expression. Experts like Moish Peltz suggest that the outcome hinges on how consumers perceive the connection between Pepperdine and the fictional Waves. In regions like Southern California, where Pepperdine is well-known, the likelihood of confusion may be higher. Conversely, viewers outside this area might not draw the same parallels.

Ultimately, the denial of the TRO reflects broader legal principles, particularly the First Amendment's protection of expressive uses of trademarks. Despite this setback, Pepperdine remains committed to pursuing its case, emphasizing the importance of defending its long-standing intellectual property. As the legal battle continues, it serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by both educational institutions and media companies in navigating the complex landscape of brand identity and entertainment.