Columbia University tried to move a trademark fight over school merchandise out of Oregon. On May 1, 2026, a federal judge said the case stays there, at least for now, because online sales of allegedly noncompliant apparel into Portland were enough to keep Columbia Sportswear’s claims alive in its home forum.
The Fight Over One Word On Apparel
The lawsuit is Columbia Sportswear Company et al. v. Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, filed in the US District Court for the District of Oregon. Columbia Sportswear Company, Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc., and Columbia Brands USA, LLC are the plaintiffs. The defendant is the university’s board of trustees.
At the center is COLUMBIA on apparel. Columbia Sportswear North America holds US Registration No. 2047397 for COLUMBIA, covering clothing and related goods. Columbia University has its own powerful name history, but this case is about school merchandise sold as clothing.
Columbia Sportswear says the university agreed in 2023 to use COLUMBIA on apparel only with other university identifiers. Those could include school wording, symbols, department names, or the founding year, 1754. The complaint says the university later sold clothing using COLUMBIA without those added signals.
Age and reputation do not end the analysis when the goods are sweatshirts, hats, and other apparel. Product context controls how trademark law sees the name.
Judge Amy M. Baggio’s May 1 order did not decide who wins. She ruled only that Columbia University had to face the case in Oregon instead of ending it early or moving it to New York. That keeps the contract and trademark claims alive.
For brand owners, the lesson is direct: two entities can share a name only when the market sees clear boundaries. Once the same word lands on the same type of product, the agreement governing that shared space becomes the center of the dispute.
Why The Oregon Court Kept The Case
Columbia University’s motion attacked where the case was filed. It argued that an Oregon federal court lacked personal jurisdiction over a New York university. It also asked the court to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York.
Judge Baggio focused on a narrow but practical fact. Columbia Sportswear alleged that Columbia University fulfilled orders for three pieces of disputed merchandise and shipped them from its New York campus to Portland, Oregon in October 2025. Those sales mattered because the allegedly infringing products reached the forum through the university’s own sales channel.
In the May 1, 2026 opinion and order, the court treated the online store as more than a passive website. The university allegedly sold physical products, controlled their shipment, and delivered them into Oregon in the ordinary course of business. That was enough at this stage to support specific jurisdiction over the trademark claims.
Contract claims stayed with the trademark claims. Both theories shared a common nucleus of facts, flowing from the same merchandise sales, and the court found no reason to separate them.
Transfer failed for a related reason. Columbia University pointed to New York witnesses, records, and merchandise. Columbia Sportswear pointed to Oregon witnesses and its home forum. The judge found that transfer would shift inconvenience rather than solve it.
That procedural ruling carries a practical warning. A brand can create legal exposure outside its home state when it sells allegedly infringing goods through an online store and ships them elsewhere. If the sale is part of normal distribution, the seller may have to defend the dispute where the product lands.
The ruling also shows how infringement and dilution claims differ in practice from ordinary contract disagreements. A naming agreement may define the parties’ promises, but the marketplace use still drives the trademark claim.
Why University Merchandise Creates Trademark Risk
University merchandise feels different from ordinary retail. Alumni buy it to show affiliation, students buy it as school identity, and bookstores treat it as campus life. Trademark law asks what consumers see in the marketplace.
Here, the product category does the hard work. Columbia University is not holding itself out as an apparel company, but the court noted that it has a bookstore selling Columbia University-themed apparel. That puts the university’s name on goods that overlap with Columbia Sportswear’s registered apparel rights.
The 2023 agreement was built around that overlap risk. According to the court order, Columbia Sportswear consented to the university’s use and registration of COLUMBIA on apparel and accessories in 48 nations, including the United States, on the condition that the term appear with at least one university identifier. The point was separation. COLUMBIA alone says one thing in an apparel aisle. Columbia University with a crest, department name, or 1754 says another.
The scale on the other side is relevant. AP reported that Columbia Sportswear clothing is sold through more than 800 retail locations, including more than 150 branded stores, plus its website and third-party marketplaces. On shirts, hats, jackets, or sweatshirts, channels can converge fast.
Beyond the COLUMBIA name, the complaint alleges that some garments used a bright blue color that Columbia Sportswear says is confusingly similar to the blue associated with its brand. That allegation has not been proven. The fight rarely stops at a word. Color, layout, product type, and retail context shape the confusion argument.
Large institutions face an operational problem. A license agreement may be clear, while the online store, staff, vendor, or product template drifts. University merch moves through many hands. So do corporate apparel programs.
I see the risk in that gap between the agreement and the product page. The brand team may understand the rule, but the buyer sees only the shirt. For schools, apparel companies, and organizations selling branded clothing, how major universities build trademark portfolios is half the issue. The other half is making sure daily merchandise use follows the boundaries.
What Coexistence Agreements Need After Signing
A coexistence agreement is a beginning, not a filing cabinet document. It gives parties a path to share similar marks, but it does not police the store, the vendor, or the product listing on its own.
Columbia’s dispute shows what has to happen after signature. If one party may use a mark only with another identifier, the rule needs to become an operating system. Approved lockups should be easy to find. Disallowed uses should be shown in plain examples. Product teams need to know whether the rule changes by country, product type, color, or sales channel. Someone should own that review process before a product goes public.
Before the first product listing goes live, run a clearance review. If you are choosing a clothing name, event merch mark, team phrase, or school store design, compare the proposed use against exact goods and real sales channels. That is where clearance steps for clothing names and logos become practical rather than theoretical.
E-commerce raises the stakes. A single product page can reach every state. A small order can become the jurisdiction fact that keeps a lawsuit in a distant court. Screenshots, inventory records, order data, and shipping logs become evidence before anyone has argued about consumer confusion.
When I review a proposed apparel name, I look at the mark as buyers will encounter it. That means exact wording, font treatment, logo placement, color, product category, sales channel, and any agreement that already limits use. A contract clause that sounds workable in negotiation can fail if it does not translate into product rules.
Monitoring should be just as concrete. A business that signs a naming agreement should review live product listings, not only brand guidelines. It should check marketplace pages, campus stores, licensee catalogs, social ads, and vendor mockups. The goal is to catch drift before it becomes a complaint.
The best agreements are paired with proof. Keep approved artwork, dated listings, vendor instructions, and examples of proper use. If the relationship later breaks down, those records show whether the agreement lived in the marketplace or only on paper.
Do Not Let A Naming Agreement Go Stale
Shared-name arrangements can work, but they require attention after the deal is signed. Online stores, apparel vendors, and fast product cycles can turn a small usage change into a court fight. If your business depends on a coexistence agreement, you need to know whether the public is seeing the mark exactly the way the agreement allows.
My practice focuses on trademark searches, application strategy, coexistence review, and practical brand-protection planning. I help clients compare proposed marks against real marketplace use, assess conflict risk, and build review systems that catch problems before a product page or shipment creates evidence in a dispute.
If your company is launching apparel, selling school merchandise, or using a name another business also claims, review the trademark position before the next listing goes live. You can contact me for a consultation and decide how to protect the mark before the disagreement reaches court.
