Court Upholds Use of Trademark in Netflix Series Under 'Rogers Test'

Pepperdine University's lawsuit against Netflix over the use of the 'Waves' mark in 'Running Point' is dismissed, preserving the vital First Amendment protections of the Rogers test.

Apr. 6, 2026 at 10:30pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

An abstract, minimalist composition of bold, jagged red and white geometric shapes, conceptually representing a fictional basketball team's logo, without any text or identifiable elements.The court's ruling safeguards the creative freedom to incorporate trademarks into expressive works, as long as the use is artistically relevant and not misleading.Los Angeles Today

A federal district court has dismissed a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Pepperdine University against Netflix and Warner Bros. over the use of a mark similar to Pepperdine's 'Waves' trademark in the Netflix series 'Running Point'. The court ruled that the defendants' use of the mark was protected under the 'Rogers test', which holds that the use of a trademark in an expressive work is permissible unless it is not artistically relevant or explicitly misleads consumers as to the source of the work.

Why it matters

The court's decision affirms the continued vitality of the Rogers test, which provides important First Amendment protections for the use of trademarks in creative works, even after the Supreme Court's recent Jack Daniel's ruling. This preserves the ability of filmmakers, TV producers, and other artists to incorporate third-party trademarks into their expressive works without fear of liability, as long as the use is artistically relevant and not explicitly misleading.

The details

In the case, Pepperdine University sued Netflix and Warner Bros. over the use of a mark similar to Pepperdine's 'Waves' trademark in the Netflix series 'Running Point'. The series features a fictional professional basketball team called the 'Los Angeles Waves' that uses colors and branding similar to Pepperdine's athletic teams. The district court dismissed Pepperdine's claims, ruling that the defendants' use of the 'Waves' mark was protected under the Rogers test, as it was artistically relevant to the series and did not explicitly mislead consumers as to the source of the work. The court found that the defendants were not using the mark to identify the source of the series, but rather as part of the creative expression of the fictional basketball team at the center of the show's plot.

  • The district court denied Pepperdine's request for a temporary restraining order to block the release of the series on March 31, 2026.
  • The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Pepperdine's lawsuit with leave to amend on March 31, 2026.

The players

Pepperdine University

A not-for-profit Christian university located in Malibu, California, whose athletic teams have been called the 'Waves' since the university's founding in 1937.

Netflix, Inc.

The streaming television service that is the distributor of the series 'Running Point'.

Warner Bros. Television

One of the production companies behind the Netflix series 'Running Point'.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Although the use of the Waves mark is pervasive throughout the show, it 'does not explicitly mislead as to the source of the work,' and does not 'explicitly or otherwise, suggest that it was produced by [Pepperdine].'”

— The District Court, Judge

“Pepperdine failed to allege that the Waves mark was used by the defendants to exploit the success of the university's sports teams or to create an association between the Running Point series and Pepperdine's teams.”

— The District Court, Judge

What’s next

Pepperdine has the option to amend its complaint or appeal the district court's dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The takeaway

The district court's decision preserves the vital First Amendment protections of the Rogers test, allowing filmmakers and TV producers to incorporate third-party trademarks into their creative works as long as the use is artistically relevant and not explicitly misleading. This ruling provides important guidance on the continued applicability of the Rogers test following the Supreme Court's Jack Daniel's decision.