Two institutions share a name, and the risk of consumer confusion is more than theoretical. A lawsuit filed in Oregon in July of 2025 pitted an iconic American outdoor apparel brand against a prestigious university, and the outcome could turn on consumers’ perception of the word “Columbia” on a piece of clothing.
The Dispute
Columbia Sportswear is a Portland, Oregon-based outdoor apparel and equipment manufacturer founded in 1938, with products sold across more than 800 locations, including 150 retail stores worldwide. Columbia University is a private Ivy League research university in New York City. Both hold trademark rights in the Columbia name—Columbia Sportswear for apparel and outdoor gear, and Columbia University for its wordmark and various athletic clothing trademarks.
The two parties reached an agreement in June 2023 to draw a line between their uses of the Columbia name. Under that agreement, Columbia University would use the Columbia name on merchandise only in conjunction with accompanying university insignia, including the word “University,” its shield, crown, founding date of 1754, its “C” logo, or its lion mascot. The agreement was designed to ensure that consumers could distinguish university-affiliated merchandise from Columbia Sportswear’s products.
Columbia Sportswear alleges that the university breached that agreement. The sportswear company discovered garments bearing only the word “Columbia” without any accompanying university insignia, being sold through the Columbia University online store. Its complaint further alleges that the apparel featured a shade of bright blue confusingly similar to the color Columbia Sportswear uses. The suit includes photographs of the contested items and argues that the university’s use of the Columbia name without school indicia is causing irreparable harm to the brand and goodwill associated with Columbia Sportswear’s registered mark.
The Legal Standards and Where Surveys Apply
To win its claim, Columbia Sportswear must demonstrate that consumer confusion is reasonably likely. Whether a consumer would encounter the university’s merchandise and believe it originates from, is affiliated with, or is endorsed by the sportswear brand is a question that likelihood of confusion surveys are designed to answer. Properly designed likelihood of confusion surveys present a representative sample of relevant consumers with the contested merchandise and measure whether they associate it with Columbia Sportswear.
The specific allegations here, i.e., the use of the standalone word “Columbia” without university insignia, in a shade of blue the complaint characterizes as confusingly similar to Columbia Sportswear’s, can be measured using consumer research. Columbia Sportswear could also explore a secondary meaning survey to assess the strength of its trademark rights, gauging the degree to which consumers associate the Columbia name or the blue color, particularly in the context of apparel, with the sportswear brand.
Columbia University could also commission its own likelihood of confusion survey to demonstrate that consumers can reliably distinguish between university-affiliated merchandise and Columbia Sportswear products. If either side introduces survey evidence, survey rebuttals from a qualified expert may also be used to identify methodological weaknesses and limit the weight of the opposing party’s findings.
What Makes This Case Distinctive
These parties negotiated and executed a coexistence agreement, which means the litigation is not simply about whether confusion is likely, but whether the university’s conduct departed from an agreed framework. This context may make the empirical question of what consumers actually perceive more consequential. If the agreement’s terms were intended to eliminate confusion, and survey evidence shows that confusion persists when the parties do not follow the agreement, that finding could carry significant weight in both the breach of contract and trademark infringement analyses.
IMS Legal Strategies survey experts design and conduct likelihood of confusion surveys, secondary meaning surveys, and survey rebuttals that meet the most rigorous standards. Our team has supported counsel across thousands of matters before federal and state courts, the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and the BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Division (NAD). Contact us to discuss how survey evidence can strengthen your position in a trademark or false advertising dispute.
