In a fascinating intersection of intellectual property and sports law, Baylor University has filed a federal trademark infringement lawsuit against Boston University, challenging Boston’s use of an interlocking “BU” design that Baylor claims is “essentially identical” to its own federally registered trademark. Filed in the Western District of Texas on August 8, 2025, this case offers valuable insights into how trademark law applies when academic institutions—and their athletic programs—share common initials.
The Heart of the Dispute: More Than Just Letters
While both universities naturally use “BU” as their initials, this lawsuit centers on something much more specific: the stylized presentation of those letters. Baylor isn’t challenging Boston University’s right to use “BU” generally. Instead, the dispute focuses on Boston’s adoption of an interlocking design where the “B” and “U” interconnect, which Baylor has used since at least 1912 and has protected through multiple federal trademark registrations.
The visual similarity between the marks is striking, and Baylor’s complaint emphasizes that its objection is “limited in scope”—targeting only the specific interlocking design, not Boston’s broader use of “BU” initials. This distinction will be crucial as the case develops.
Baylor’s Legal Arsenal: Multiple Theories of Infringement
Baylor’s complaint presents a comprehensive legal strategy, asserting four distinct claims that demonstrate the multi-layered nature of trademark protection:
Federal Trademark Infringement (Section 32 of the Lanham Act)
This is Baylor’s strongest claim, based on its multiple federal trademark registrations for the interlocking BU design. The registrations cover various classes of goods and services, including:
- Clothing and apparel (Class 25);
- Bags and accessories (Class 18);
- Educational and entertainment services (Class 41); and
- Various merchandise categories.
Federal registration provides powerful legal presumptions, including the presumption of validity, nationwide priority, and the right to exclude others from using confusingly similar marks.
Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin (Section 43(a))
Even without registered rights, this claim protects against uses that are likely to cause consumer confusion about the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of goods and services. This theory is particularly relevant in the university context, where consumers might assume an institutional connection between similarly marked merchandise.
Texas State Law Claims
Baylor also asserts both statutory and common law trademark infringement under Texas law, providing additional remedies and ensuring comprehensive protection under state intellectual property statutes.
The Coexistence Agreement: A Critical Legal Backdrop
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this case is the historical context. In 1987, when Baylor first applied to register its interlocking BU mark, Boston University opposed the application. However, the parties resolved their dispute through a coexistence agreement in 1988, with Boston subsequently withdrawing its opposition.
This agreement acknowledged that both universities needed to use “BU” for their respective institutions, noting that “[u]se of a school’s initials to refer to the school is commonplace and it would greatly harm Boston University and Baylor University if they were prohibited from using ‘BU’ in connection with services and on products.”
Critically, Baylor argues that this agreement created no right for Boston to use an interlocking design—only the basic “BU” initials. This interpretation will likely be central to the litigation, as contract interpretation principles will intersect with trademark law.
Boston University’s Likely Defenses
While Boston University hasn’t yet filed its response, several defense strategies seem probable based on the facts presented:
Coexistence Agreement Defense
Boston will likely argue that the 1988 agreement provides broader rights than Baylor suggests, potentially including the right to stylize the “BU” letters in various ways. The agreement’s language about allowing both schools to use “BU” in connection with products and services may be interpreted more expansively.
Descriptive Fair Use
Boston may claim that any use of interlocking “BU” letters is merely descriptive of the institution itself, falling under the fair use doctrine that allows descriptive use of terms that identify the user’s own goods or services.
Lack of Consumer Confusion
A key defense will likely focus on challenging whether consumers would actually be confused about the source of goods or any institutional affiliation. Both universities serve different geographic markets primarily, and their academic and athletic reputations are distinct.
Prior Rights Claims
Boston may argue it has its own common law or other rights in BU designs that predate Baylor’s claimed priority, particularly given that it opposed Baylor’s original application, suggesting it believed it had superior rights at that time.
The Sports Law Intersection: Athletics as Brand Amplifiers
This case perfectly illustrates how university athletics amplify trademark disputes. Baylor emphasizes its athletic success, noting NCAA Division 1 national championships in multiple sports since 2000. The complaint specifically mentions Boston’s use of the interlocking design in connection with club sports including women’s rugby, sailing, men’s volleyball, and cycling.
University athletic programs serve as massive brand marketing engines, generating visibility far beyond traditional educational services. When teams compete nationally and internationally, trademark disputes take on heightened significance because:
- National Exposure: Athletic competitions broadcast university marks to millions of viewers;
- Merchandise Sales: Sports fans drive significant licensed product revenue;
- Alumni Loyalty: Athletic success creates stronger emotional connections to university brands; and
- Recruiting Tool: Distinctive, protectable marks become part of institutional identity.
Key Trademark Law Takeaways for Businesses
This dispute offers several important lessons for trademark holders:
1. Specificity Matters in Enforcement
Baylor’s strategic decision to target only the interlocking design while explicitly accepting Boston’s use of basic “BU” lettering demonstrates sophisticated trademark enforcement. This focused approach strengthens their legal position and reduces the appearance of overreaching.
2. Coexistence Agreements Must Be Carefully Drafted
The 1988 agreement between these universities will be scrutinized intensively. This highlights the importance of precise language in coexistence agreements, particularly regarding the scope of permitted uses and design variations.
3. Registration Timing Is Critical
Baylor’s multiple federal registrations, some dating back decades, provide strong legal presumptions. The lesson: register your marks early and comprehensively across relevant goods and services classes.
4. Monitor and Enforce Consistently
Baylor’s complaint shows it has been monitoring Boston’s use since at least 2018, objected in 2021, and filed suit when Boston expanded rather than ceased its use. This demonstrates the diligent enforcement necessary to maintain trademark rights.
5. Industry Context Influences Confusion Analysis
Courts will consider whether consumers in the university/education sector would be confused by similar marks. The shared “BU” initials create a unique context that may influence the likelihood of confusion analysis.
The Road Ahead: What to Watch
Several key legal questions will likely determine this case’s outcome:
Contract Interpretation: How broadly will the court interpret the 1988 coexistence agreement? Does it permit stylistic variations of “BU” or only basic letter usage?
Likelihood of Confusion: Will consumers actually be confused about institutional affiliation or merchandise source? This factual determination will be crucial.
Prior Use and Priority: Despite the coexistence agreement, questions about who has superior rights in interlocking designs may emerge.
Remedial Scope: If Baylor prevails, what remedies will the court impose? Complete cessation of interlocking designs, or more limited restrictions?
Conclusion: A Case Study in Modern Trademark Enforcement
The Baylor v. Boston University litigation represents more than just a dispute between two academic institutions—it’s a window into how trademark law evolves to address complex branding challenges in interconnected markets. The case demonstrates that even seemingly straightforward elements like institutional initials can become valuable intellectual property assets worthy of vigorous protection.
For trademark holders, this case reinforces fundamental principles: register early and comprehensively, monitor your marks consistently, enforce your rights strategically, and draft agreements with precision. The intersection of educational services, athletic competition, and consumer merchandise creates a complex trademark landscape where careful legal strategy is essential.
As this litigation unfolds, it will likely establish important precedent for how courts balance institutional naming rights, historical agreements, and consumer protection in the modern marketplace. Whether Baylor can successfully defend its interlocking BU design against a university that shares the same initials will depend on careful legal analysis of trademark strength, consumer confusion, and contractual interpretation.
The ultimate resolution will send important signals to universities, sports organizations, and other institutions about the scope of trademark protection for stylized designs based on common letter combinations—making this a case worth watching for anyone involved in brand protection and enforcement.