‘White Lotus,’ Duke Trademark Clash Reveals Big Branding Stakes

Duke University’s objection to how HBO’s “The White Lotus” portrayed the school’s trademark highlights the ongoing legal debate between artistic expression and brand protection.

Duke’s protest underscores the challenges trademark owners face in maintaining control over their brand identity when it’s associated with controversial content, as well as the tension that can emerge when trademarks appear without permission and risk tarnishing a brand’s image.

As streaming content expands the visibility of these portrayals, companies face growing pressure to assert their intellectual property rights—even when the law may not fully support their claims.

T-Shirt Tension

In Season 3 of “The White Lotus,” Duke alumnus Timothy Ratliff is portrayed as struggling with mental health issues after the fallout from financial crimes. In a pivotal scene in Episode 5, he contemplates suicide while wearing a Duke T-shirt.

Duke condemned the portrayal, arguing the show never sought permission to use its trademark and that the way it was shown associated the university with imagery “that is troubling, does not reflect our values or who we are, and simply goes too far.”

Despite the university’s objections, HBO’s use of the Duke logo likely falls under nominative fair use, which permits trademark references to identify the owner’s goods or services without infringement—in this case, signaling Ratliff’s alumni status.

The Legal Line

Several recent court decisions highlight how judges balance trademark protections with First Amendment rights in entertainment contexts.

In February, Pepperdine University sued Netflix Inc. and Warner Bros., claiming their new show “Running Point” violated its trademark rights by featuring the fictional team the “Los Angeles Waves.”

Pepperdine, which owns registered trademarks for “Waves” in connection with its athletic teams, alleged the show’s use of the team name, colors, and the number “37”—the year of the university’s founding and the player number of Pepperdine’s well-known mascot—constituted trademark infringements.

The court denied Pepperdine’s motion, finding the use of “Waves” was artistically relevant and not misleading. This mirrors “The White Lotus” depiction of Duke, where Duke’s trademarks were used to form a character’s background rather than to brand the show itself—a narrative use that is likely protected under the First Amendment.

In Jack Daniel’s Props. v. VIP Prods. LLC, the US Supreme Court set a critical precedent: Parodies lose First Amendment protection if they function as source identifiers (i.e. for branding purposes). While VIP’s dog toy mimicking Jack Daniel’s bottle was deemed expressive, its commercial use as branding invalidated the parody defense.

By contrast, “The White Lotus” references to Duke are part of the fictional storyline and don’t suggest that Duke sponsored or is affiliated with the show. Such uses align more closely with protected artistic expression that courts have shielded from trademark claims.

High-profile intellectual property battles between entertainment companies and brands have become increasingly common. They reflect the evolving entertainment landscape, where the viral nature of streaming content and social media amplifies reputational risks, prompting brands to respond swiftly to perceived reputational harm even when their legal standing is weak.

In many cases, optics outweigh legal viability, as silence could imply endorsement. The tension is inevitable—creatives seek authenticity and cultural relevance, while brands seek to protect and control their public image.

Blurred Boundaries

While the Lanham Act—the federal statute that governs trademark law—aims to prevent consumer confusion, courts often prioritize free speech in creative works. The line between fair use and infringement is heavily dependent on context, demanding careful analysis of whether a trademark serves artistic expression or is mere branding.

US trademark law recognizes two types of fair use: descriptive, where terms describe goods or services rather than act as trademarks, and nominative, where trademarks reference goods or services without implying endorsement. For example, calling a cranberry drink “sweet-tart” despite the “SweeTarts” trademark is descriptive fair use, while an auto shop advertising it services specific car brands is nominative fair use.

Parody, criticism, and commentary represent other fair use variations, particularly when they involve humor or critique without creating confusion about the source of goods or services.

Navigating the Crossfire

Moving forward, brand owners can proactively mitigate their risks by:

Monitoring media references. Implement proactive systems to track unauthorized trademark appearances in scripts or productions before they spread virally.

Using preemptive agreements. Engage with creatives or studios directly to negotiate usage terms pre-release.

Forming strategic responses. Evaluate whether legal action or a public statement better serves brand interests based on context and public perception. Focus enforcement efforts on genuinely damaging or confusing uses rather than reacting to all references.

The legal system will continue to evolve in its approach to balancing free expression with trademark protections. These disputes set a precedent for other brands navigating how their trademarks are portrayed in fictional media, especially as streaming content continues to blend real-world references with creative storytelling.

For intellectual property attorneys, advising clients means balancing brand monitoring with strategic decision-making on whether public reaction or legal positioning best serves the client’s best interests. Agile strategies, including proactive monitoring, preemptive negotiations, and PR-focused responses are essential for navigating these challenges.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Judy Yen is an attorney at Omnus Law who advises emerging companies on trademark portfolio management, IP enforcement, and complex commercial transactions.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines