Columbia Sportswear Sues Columbia University in Trademark Dispute Over Branded Apparel

Columbia Sportswear Company has initiated legal proceedings against Columbia University, alleging that the university breached a trademark agreement by selling apparel featuring the word “Columbia” without accompanying university-specific insignia. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, accuses the university of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract.

In June 2023, both parties reached an agreement permitting Columbia University to use the “Columbia” name on merchandise, provided it was accompanied by clear university identifiers such as the word “University,” the school’s crest, or the establishment date “1754.” This arrangement aimed to prevent consumer confusion between the university’s products and Columbia Sportswear’s offerings. However, Columbia Sportswear contends that, starting in September 2024, the university began selling items that displayed only the word “Columbia,” omitting the agreed-upon identifiers. Some of these products were co-branded with manufacturers like Nike and Champion, which, according to the complaint, could mislead consumers into believing there is an association between Columbia Sportswear and these brands. ([wweek.com](https://www.wweek.com/news/2025/07/23/columbia-sportswear-sues-columbia-university-alleging-branded-gear-causes-confusion/?utm_source=openai))

The sportswear company asserts that it attempted to resolve the issue amicably but claims the university continued to sell the disputed merchandise. Columbia Sportswear is seeking a court order to halt the sale of these items, a recall of existing inventory, and damages for economic harm, including potential treble damages for alleged willful infringement. ([gerbenlaw.com](https://www.gerbenlaw.com/blog/trademark-dispute-erupts-between-columbia-sportswear-and-columbia-university/?utm_source=openai))

Columbia University has not publicly responded to the lawsuit. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for trademark agreements and the use of shared names in commercial contexts.