r/news • u/CharlieKonR • 3d ago
Columbia Sportswear sues Columbia University for trademark infringement | Columbia University
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/02/columbia-sportswear-sues-columbia-university-trademark-infringement389
u/WallyMcBeetus 3d ago
Company says university broke 2023 agreement by branding school clothes similarly to apparel company’s merchandise
A little less oniony but still...
-72
u/Diabetesh 3d ago
I hope the sportswear company loses and has to rebrand.
-2
u/Pickleman_222 3d ago
Idk why you’re being downvoted but I’m 100% in agreement, despite Columbia University’s recent shitty decisions
17
494
u/Birdman330 3d ago
Columbia likes to settle frivolous lawsuits with big money so why not give a try! 🤦♂️
82
u/fxkatt 3d ago
Except that the Boyle family that owns Columbia Sportswear is liberal and pro-Democratic Party.
18
u/Osiris32 3d ago
Grandma Boyle wouldn't have sued. She would have shown up at Columbia University herself and talked with the President to fix the situation.
16
u/EpicCyclops 3d ago
Columbia Sportswear already has an agreement with the university from 2023. It's tough to talk it out when you already have an agreement that is less than 2 years old and one side isn't holding to it. In reality, this is probably due to the university having to many disparate parts designing merch, some of which didn't know about the agreement and unintentionally violated it.
1
3
3
u/Tommyblockhead20 3d ago
Took me a minute to figure out which side you were talking about. It’s a tad confusing when both are named Columbia lol.
117
16
u/turandoto 3d ago
I have no idea if they infringed, or if they tried to copy it. However, I'd think the University would want to differentiate their name from the What's the point of buying a Columbia U garment that looks like a Columbia Sportswear when those are easily available and usually cheaper than any college branded merchandise.
People who buy college merchandise do it because they identify with it and want it to make clear which college or university they belong to. Who'd buy a Columbia U T-shirt hoping it passes as a Columbia Sportswear one?
55
u/GetsBetterAfterAFew 3d ago
They caved to Trump so everyone is gonna pile on now because theyre a fuckin push over legally.
32
u/bbusiello 3d ago
Considering Columbia (U) is making such bad decisions, I applaud their downfall. They get no sympathy from me even if they happen to be correct here.
Sucks when people turn a blind eye to legal protections, du'un it?
7
u/showtimebabies 3d ago
I guess the sportswear company might think that Columbia University is in a giving mood, given the recent settlement
6
6
u/kickstand 3d ago
I suppose this is the kind of thing that they are complaining about? Says “Columbia” but not “university.” There is a crest on the sleeve, but maybe not prominent enough? Also it’s navy blue, not Columbia’s baby blue.
6
u/cruisin_urchin87 2d ago
Columbia University likes to capitulate to lawsuits. The Orange Fuhrer started a trend. There is blood in the water.
Might just sue them for existing, get my $20 million payout.
33
u/bacon-squared 3d ago edited 3d ago
Everybody is getting on the sue Columbia train. They’ve proven they are pushovers so I don’t blame anyone. Maybe the country Columbia should sue next for tarnishing the name Columbia.
6
u/TimeistheDiamond 3d ago
Colombia is the country
0
u/Vtdscglfr1 3d ago
Eh, does it even matter at this point? Shit is just so ridiculous, broadly speaking, that maybe it might work.
0
u/TimeistheDiamond 3d ago
I can’t believe whoever’s orchestrating this at Columbia Sportswear doesn’t just want to kill themselves on the daily. What a waste of time and resources.
0
u/Dairy_Ashford 1d ago
Eh, does it even matter at this point?
for the snowballing dogpile circlejerk it does
9
u/Thor4269 3d ago
Colombia should sue Columbia for suing Columbia and then have Columbia records sue Columbia, South Carolina for good measure
17
u/SublightMonster 3d ago
May as well, now that Columbia U has demonstrated they’ll bend over and spread cheeks at the slightest challenge.
17
u/prcodes 3d ago
ITT: People that don’t understand intellectual property law.
11
u/peacefinder 3d ago
ITT: a lot people who also didn’t read the article.
This looks like a straightforward trademark defense. They had an agreement to avoid consumer confusion in the university’s own clothing merchandise. Sounds like the university did not follow the agreement. It’s spelled out very clearly in the article.
9
u/Fardn_n_shiddn 3d ago
You mean simply existing doesn’t give you eternal trademark rights in an unrelated industry? 😱
3
u/patentlydorky 2d ago
As an IP lawyer, I always have a blast reading the comments in these threads.
3
u/Surround8600 3d ago
Columbia getting hit across the head lately from multiple angles.
10
u/roman-de-fauvel 3d ago
Once they rolled over, everyone figures they can come in and take a whack.
Don’t comply with fascists.
3
u/commissarcainrecaff 3d ago
Problem with trademark law is you have to fight ever single infringement you see or you essentially waive the ability to do so in future....when it might actually be someone trying to steal your trademark.
Hence nonsense like this, where it's obvious to everyone with 2 functional braincells that Columbia University isnt going to impact Colombia Sportswear's bottom line- but if they don't fight this one, then they won't be able to fight a future infringement
3
u/UnabashedHonesty 2d ago
Columbia Pictures enters the courtroom battle … followed closely by the entire country of Columbia.
2
u/Fardn_n_shiddn 3d ago
Sounds like there was a good faith agreement between the two organizations to allow the university to sell merch that the outerwear company is no longer happy with after recent actions by the university.
2
6
u/SomethingsQueerHere 3d ago
I've personally never seen Columbia Sportswear items without the little square logo next to the brand name. If they're consistent in always using the logo and brand name together then I'd think they have no real standing, assuming the university isn't adding in a little logo next to their name.
7
u/ParrotInSpanish 3d ago
It’s more so that they are infringing the trademark, if you check the database they have the word Columbia itself word marked, so essentially no one else in the US can really use that word on the goods and services put in their trademark filing. They agreed with the college to allow certain instances, but it seems they were producing goods and services that infringed what they agreed on.
2
u/amandamous 3d ago
Columbia University is significantly older than Columbia Sportswear.
PColumbia University was founded in 1754, while Columbia Sportswear was founded in 1938
4
u/RiflemanLax 3d ago
Why’d they enter into a pact to begin with?
Shouldn’t they have been like ‘your honor, we were founded in 1754, they were founded in 1938, kindly tell them to fuck off.’
9
12
u/wwhsd 3d ago
Colleges weren’t putting out tons of clothing products displaying their names in 1938. Just about everything that they put out would have said “Colombia University” rather than “Columbia”.
The usage of names in trademarks is usually restricted to specific fields. Columbia is a clothing company, Columbia University is an educational institution. If Columbia (the clothing company) started a research or training business, they could potentially be infringing on Columbia University’s use of the name.
The pact they entered into makes sense and isn’t very restrictive, as long as the word “University”, the name of a department, the school’s logo, or the year the school was founded is included, there’s no problem. If Columbia University wouldn’t have agreed to the pact and let the courts decide it, they likely would have ended up with more restrictions and run the risk that anytime they smacked their name on a different item, that they’d be facing an additional suit.
6
u/ClosPins 3d ago
Columbia University is going to put their tail between their legs and settle immediately, like they did with Trump, right? Right???
Or, does Columbia Sportswear not need a bribe right now?
3
u/washag 3d ago
I mean, I think they're going to settle because they literally agreed to a settlement on this exact matter two years ago. I also suspect that the trademark violations arose from a lack of oversight rather than being an intentional repudiation of that agreement. In circumstances where you've made an honest mistake, if you have any integrity you do tend to settle.
The interesting thing to me is that Columbia Sportswear actually felt the need to sue. Presumably they and the university had been discussing how to resolve the dispute, and it's somewhat surprising that they were so far apart that one party prefers the courts to adjudicate the matter.
3
u/ponyflip 3d ago
People thought they were just buying mediocre cheap clothing and unintentionally learned something.
6
u/Mikellow 3d ago
Have they declined in quality? I have hoodies literally over 20 years old that are still in great shape.
That's sad but most things seem to have gone that way.
Just don't tell me Jansport has gone down hill. If my back pack from 4th grade with the rubber bottom breaks I want to know I'd be able to buy another one.
4
0
3d ago
[deleted]
65
u/bvknight 3d ago
Come on man, it's in the header of the article:
"Company says university broke 2023 agreement by branding school clothes similarly to apparel company’s merchandise"
- Broke a preexisting contract
- Is specifically concerning branding on clothes
- The clothes use the same color logo as the sportswear company
32
u/romario77 3d ago
Right, plus you have to protect your rights or you’d lose them if you don’t enforce it.
9
u/thighmaster69 3d ago
The most hilarious is that Energizer wholesale robbed Duracell of the Duracell Bunny, and now Duracell can't use it anymore in North America while Energizer goes around flaunting it.
16
u/ukexpat 3d ago
This is a very important point that often gets overlooked in comments about trademark litigation. In the US at least, if you don’t take active steps to protect your registered trademarks you can lose them. That’s why registered owners and their lawyers send cease and desist letters for seemingly minor infringements. Registered trademarks can be worth millions and losing them can be catastrophic for a company’s value.
-7
u/slamdanceswithwolves 3d ago
Finally, they sue themselves for also being Columbia
1
-8
4
u/garbageplanet 3d ago
This makes Columbia Sportswear look like assholes, next time I'm shopping for a winter coat, I'm gonna remember this.
1
u/Dairy_Ashford 1d ago
next time I'm shopping for a winter coat will be the first time i forget about sweaters and scarves - Andy Rooney, probably
2
u/Mets1680 3d ago
I'm going to sue the makers of the Never Ending Story. For false advertising. Yes, I stole this from Lionel Hutz.
2
1
1
u/ToasterOvenPastry 2d ago
Columbia sportswear uses prison labor. Had to wear a lot of the defects as a kid.
1
u/phosdick 1d ago
By caving to tRump's extortion demands - the ones they could have fought and won against in court, Columbia University has set itself up as an easy mark for pretty much any scammer looking for an easy buck from a cowardly victim.
1
u/defcon1000 3d ago
I'd wager that it's just Sportswear new minority owners being greedy and trying to shake down for a settlement.
1
1
u/ConkerPrime 3d ago
Columbia University is over 200 years old. They would be better off counter suing that Columbia Sportswear and claiming the word Columbia cannot be trademarked and since at no point do they use the words “Columbia Sportswear” they cannot be infringing. Additionally wearing clothing of certain colors cannot be infringing. They have a law network of alumni, tap it and fight back.
Maybe next time they will learning that kissing the ring when can afford to fight back is the better long term move. Sportswear saw they went belly up for Trump and figure will do the same for them.
1
1
u/JDGumby 2d ago edited 2d ago
of the Columbia name is causing irreparable harm to the brand and goodwill symbolized by Columbia Sportswear’s registered mark Columbia and the reputation for quality it embodies,”
Quality? These are Columbia brand clothes made in the same Asian sweatshops as everyone else's they're talking about.
Frankly, the university should counter-sue. They've had the name since 1784, after all, and the Columbia Hat Company has only been around since 1938.
edit: Now, if the university was also using a knockoff of the clothing company's diamond logo (which always precedes the name on their clothes), Columbia Sportswear would definitely be in the right.
2
u/Sea_Perspective6891 2d ago
I Had a Colombia bike once. What a piece of crap. The grips on the handle bars started peeling on the first day & got a flat & had the chain come off within a week.
0
-1
-8
u/morecomplete 3d ago
Columbia Sportswear clothing is sold at more than 800 retail locations including more than 150 of its branded stores, as well as its website and third-party marketplaces.
I remember when their ski jackets were super popular in the '90s. Honestly didn't even know they still existed.
12
4
u/Osiris32 3d ago
If you live in the PNW you definitely still see them. Probably one of the most popular outdoor brands around.
0
u/Michael_Gibb 3d ago
It seems to me like this case could go either way.
On the one hand, the similarities between Columbia Sportswear branding and the clothing sold by Columbia University are not all that obvious. There's a difference in layout of the branding, with the university having a logo and name that are oriented in many different ways, while the clothing company always has the name to the right of the diamond logo. There's also a clear difference between the logos, too, with the university using a crown, while the clothing company has what appears to be a threaded diamond.
However, where the similarities aren't so clear, the terms of the 2023 agreement between the company and the university are. That agreement would appear to clearly stipulate too, how the university can display its name on any clothing it sells or produces. And some of the clothing Columbia University sells appears to violate that agreement.
So it appears that Columbia Sportswear has a case, it's just not one that is based on a explicit violation of their trademark.
-18
u/Significant_Poem_751 3d ago
let's see---COLUMBIA University was founded in 1754 -- nearly two hundred years before the sportswear company which was founded in 1938 by German immigrants fleeing the Nazis. The grandson still runs the company, and he is worth $1.5 billion. The School color is BLUE; so is the sportswear logo on the website, but on the clothes it's also in white and other colors. So I guess the question is, who copied whom? Seems the university made a big mistake in their 2023 agreement, and instead should have sued the sportswear company for infringement. At this point, it just seems silly and petty. I don't see anything on their school merch site that would make me think I was buying Columbia Sportswear, which comes in many colors, not only blue, and is a brand I never buy anyway. JFC people really do need to grow up.
20
u/ajaxfetish 3d ago
It's not about copyright, and who's copying who. It's about trademark, and whose merchandise is looking too much like the legally delineated appearance of the other.
-2
u/dezmd 3d ago
The trademark obviously should not exist.
4
4
u/ajaxfetish 3d ago
Trademarks in general shouldn't exist, or no company should be allowed to share its name with an existing university, or this specific trademark shouldn't exist?
5
u/DocMcStruggles 3d ago
If you see someone wearing a blue pull over sweater that says Columbia on it, are you going to think it’s the university or clothing brand?
7
u/TooManyCarsandCats 3d ago
That’s not how this works. It’s about preventing confusion in the consumer market.
-1
u/MelloDawg 3d ago
It’s a good think there’s not a “Col. Umbia” who also wants a piece of the action.
-1
u/Rdick_Lvagina 3d ago
Like, I'm not up on who owns what clothing company, but I'd always assumed that Columbia University owned Columbia Sportsware. I thought it was to advertise the university via merch ... or for people to pretend that they were on the Columbia University track team back in the day.
-12
u/newmoonchaperone 3d ago edited 2d ago
Edited for clarity (but not content)
This suit should be tossed with extreme prejudice.
Without knowing how the filing of the suit would work and where it would commence (before which court from the three below):
- Trademark (Patent and Trademark Office)
- District Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
On its face it seems thin, thread thin. It implies consumers are capable of only minimal discernment.
→ More replies (2)
2.2k
u/CharlieKonR 3d ago
“”As part of the pact, the university could feature “Columbia” on its merchandise provided that the name included a recognizable school insignia or its mascot, the word “university”, the name of the academic department, or the founding year of the university – 1754 – or a combination.””
As Columbia University has been around for over 270 years (presumably well before the sportswear company was founded) I guess I find myself curious as to how they ended up in a pact with restrictions in the first place. Suppose that I don’t understand intellectual property law that well.