Who Owns the BU?
An analysis of the recent copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Baylor University against Boston University for allegedly using a confusingly similar interlocking BU logo.
Attribution:
©4300streetcar, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
On August 8, 2025, Baylor University filed a federal lawsuit against the Trustees of Boston University for copyright infringement and unfair competition. Baylor Univ. v. Trs. of Boston Univ., No. 6:25-CV-00352, 2025 WL 2326490, at ¶3 (W.D.Tex. Aug. 8, 2025). Baylor University, chartered by the Republic of Texas in 1845, is the oldest continually operating institution of higher education in Texas. Id. at ¶5. Baylor alleges that Boston University has been using an interlocking BU logo that is “essentially identical and/or confusingly similar to Baylor’s federally registered Interlocking BU,” for merchandise and club sports. Id. at ¶26, ¶27, ¶28.
Baylor claims that Boston has historically used logos with the letters appearing side-by-side, and does not object to this use. Id. at ¶18. On the other hand, Baylor claims to have used the interlocking BU logo since 1912, thus claiming first use of the logo. Id. at ¶10. Additionally, in 1987 Baylor applied to register the interlocking BU logo and was opposed by Boston through a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Opposition that was terminated in 1988 when the two parties came to a coexistence agreement. See id. at ¶19. The agreement acknowledged that the parties must be able to coexist because using a schools’ initials to refer to the school is common and would harm both universities if its use was prohibited, however the agreement did not stipulate that Boston could use an interlocking BU logo like Baylor’s. Id. at ¶20, ¶21.
In 2018, Baylor became aware of Boston selling hats featuring an interlocking BU, and expanding its use for other merchandise in 2021. Id. at ¶23, ¶24. Baylor sent a cease and desist letter in December 2021, but Boston further expanded its use to include branding for its club sports. Id at ¶24, ¶26, ¶27. Baylor now alleges that Boston’s use of the logo on their merchandise and for their club sport teams is causing irreparable harm to Baylor’s brand, placing its valuable goodwill and reputation in Boston’s’ hands. See id. at ¶36, ¶37.
Today, higher education institutions are more than just places for individuals to seek knowledge. According to a ranking by CNBC, the Baylor University athletics program is worth $513 million, generating $137 million in 2024. Michael Ozanian, What the Top 75 College Sports Programs are Worth, CNBC (Dec. 19, 2024), https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/19/college-sports-programs-valuations.html. With Baylor’s athletics program alone being worth hundreds of millions of dollars, it is no surprise that the university would want to protect the interlocking BU logo that is widely associated with its athletic program. Baylor University at ¶11. The value of the interlocking BU in athletics is likely a major factor Baylor considered before filing the lawsuit.
If universities are operating at the national scale and are generating revenue from their brand recognition like Baylor claims, then it is important to protect brands that may be confused by consumers. See id. at ¶33. Courts evaluate brand confusion among consumers by checking a variety of factors including similarity of mark, proximity of business, strength of mark, similarity of marketing, behavior of consumers in specific market, evidence of actual confusion, and evidence of ill intent. Perkins Law - Brand Protection, How Will a Court Determine if Alleged Trademark Infringement Constitutes a “Likelihood of Confusion”?, Perkins Law (December 11, 2023), https://www.brandprotection.law/how-will-a-court-determine-if-alleged-trademark-infringement-constitutes-a-likelihood-of-confusion/. Baylor alleged that Boston created confusion because the mark is identical or confusingly similar, their goods and services travel in the same channels and are purchased by similar consumers, Boston is not affiliated with or licensed to use Baylor’s mark, and Baylor has made Boston aware of the alleged violation through the cease and desist letter. Baylor University at ¶28, ¶29, ¶30, ¶31, ¶32. These claims, if true, satisfy several of the factors that courts evaluate in determining confusion of trademark use in these types of cases.
Baylor seems likely to be given relief by the court when this claim is compared with a similar lawsuit in 2010 between the University of Southern California and the University of South Carolina concerning the latter’s filing for a trademark of a logo similar to the former’s similar, owned mark. See Univ. of South Carolina v. Univ. of S. California, No. 2009-1064, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2010). In that case, the University of South Carolina was appealing a decision from the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board saying they could not register the Carolina Baseball Logo because it was too similar to the logo registered by the University of Southern California, but the decision was upheld by the appellate court. Id. The court said “Among other things, the Board based its conclusion on its findings that South Carolina's mark and Southern California's Standard Character Mark were legally identical, that the marks would appear on the same classes of goods in the same channels of trade and that some consumers would exercise little care in making purchases.” Id. This case is similar to the Baylor case because it is a claim between two universities involving the use of a logo that one of the universities owns a copyright to, and is specifically concerned with the marks being identical, appearing on the same goods and in the same channels, and that some users may be confused by the logos when trying to support their preferred university. If the court in Baylor University is persuaded by the University of South Carolina, it seems likely that Baylor will prevail.
Some people may think that Baylor shouldn’t be taking Boston to court over this. Daniel Kolber even entered Baylor’s campus to protest the suit, saying “People are not being confused and buying the other schools’ hats just because the letters are interlocked,” and “When you’re running a Christian university talking about Christian values, talking about all of the things that this school suggests, then that is a higher legal standard.” Marisa Young, Battle for BU: Logo Lawsuit Brings Protestor to Campus, Baylor Lariat (Aug. 22, 2025). While Kolbers’ views on Baylor’s moral obligations may be debated, it is clear that the University of South Carolina court may not be swayed by his confusion argument. See University of South Carolina. Regardless of one’s collegiate allegiances, it is important to recognize that universities have the right to protect their brand identities, and in doing so are able to continue to thrive and provide education, as well as entertainment to many people.