What happens when a decades-old trademark agreement collides with modern branding strategies? Baylor University has sued Boston University over the use of an interlocking “BU” logo, reigniting a dispute that traces back to a 1988 coexistence agreement. The case underscores how legacy trademark deals can collide with evolving commercial realities, especially in the high-stakes world of collegiate branding.
In a complaint filed in Texas federal district court, Baylor alleges trademark infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin aimed at Boston’s use of an interlocking “BU” logo on merchandise. The dispute centers on the scope and interpretation of a nearly 40-year-old settlement and coexistence agreement between the two institutions.
According to Baylor, since at least as early as 1912, Baylor has continuously used “BU” in a “stylized format, in which the letter B and U interlock,” whereas Boston has “primarily and historically” used stylized marks displaying the letters “BU” “side-by-side.”
When Baylor first attempted to seek federal registration of its interlocking “BU” design mark in 1987, Boston filed an opposition before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, (“TTAB”) and the parties apparently reached a settlement and coexistence agreement in 1988. Baylor claims the agreement “acknowledges that the parties must be able to coexist by using the letters ‘BU’ for their respective universities,” but it “created no right of use of an identical interlocking BU stylized mark for [Boston].”
The complaint now alleges that Boston’s recent use of an interlocking “BU” design mark on merchandise, promotional materials and digital platforms goes beyond what was contemplated in the 37-year-old agreement. Baylor argues that Boston’s use of an interlocking “BU” design creates a likelihood of confusion among consumers, especially in the context of collegiate athletics and apparel.
The case raises important questions about how legacy agreements hold up in today’s branding landscape. As universities increasingly commercialize their marks and expand into new markets, the boundaries set decades ago may no longer reflect current realities. This dispute also highlights the challenges of protecting stylized letter marks, particularly when they consist of common initials and are used in overlapping channels like e-commerce and sports merchandising.
The outcome of this case could have broader implications for institutions that rely on coexistence agreements to manage trademark rights. It may prompt schools and other institutions to revisit older agreements and assess whether their current branding strategies align with the terms originally negotiated.
Practice Points and Takeaways
- Maintain a Comprehensive Brand Guide
Brands with long histories should maintain and regularly update a brand guide that includes references to all agreements affecting the use of marks and artwork. This helps ensure that internal teams and external partners understand the permissions and restrictions tied to legacy trademarks.
- Draft Agreements with the Future in Mind
When negotiating coexistence or licensing agreements, consider how the brand may evolve. A rigid restriction – such as limiting use to black-and-white designs or specific trade channels – may unintentionally constrain future creative or commercial strategies. Incorporate flexibility where possible.
- Coexistence Requires Discipline
Shared terms like “BU” can function in both parties’ branding if care is taken to keep the uses visually and contextually distinct. Consistent differentiation in design, color and application helps reduce the likelihood of consumer confusion and supports long-term coexistence.
The case is Baylor University v. Trustees of Boston University, 6:25-cv-00352-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex.). The case has been assigned to Judge Albright.
[View source.]
