The series Running Point, produced by, among others, Mindy Kaling and Jeanie Buss, features a fictional basketball team called the “Waves,” based in Los Angeles. Although the creators openly admit that the real Los Angeles Lakers (a team that has belonged to the Buss family for decades) served as inspiration, Pepperdine University saw this as an unauthorized use of elements of its brand. The university has n using the name “Waves” for its sports teams since 1937, with blue and orange colors, and a distinctive logo depicting a wave. In the lawsuit, the producers were accused not only of using the identical name and color scheme but also of referencing the university’s founding through the number 37 on the main character’s jersey. Sean Burnett, Pepperdine’s chief marketing officer, stated: “Netflix has appropriated our name, colors, and even the year the institution was founded, violating basic principles of intellectual property.”
The lawsuit was based on claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition. Pepperdine argued that viewers might confuse the fictional team with the university’s “Waves,” especially since the series is set in Los Angeles – the same city where the university is located. The producers responded by using the Rogers test from 1989, which protects the artistic use of trademarks as long as it doesn’t intentionally mislead. The court emphasized that the name “Waves” refers to California’s waves and beach culture, constituting an “artistically justified” element in the context of a series about a basketball team. In its decision on February 26, 2025, the judge stated: “Viewers understand that this is a fictional version of the Lakers, not a documentary about Pepperdine. The name ‘Waves’ serves to create local color, not to exploit the university’s reputation.”
The decision to deny the injunction was a surprise to Pepperdine. The ruling was based on two pillars of the Rogers test. First, the court found that the use of the name “Waves” had “minimal artistic relevance” – the producers demonstrated that the name referred to the Californian lifestyle (beaches, surfing) and not to the university. Second, there was no evidence of intentional misleading of viewers regarding the connection between the series and Pepperdine. The judge noted that the opening credits clearly indicated Netflix and Warner Bros. as the producers, eliminating the risk of confusion. The justification also emphasized that the creators consciously avoided using the Lakers’ actual logos, which demonstrated their care in distinguishing fiction from reality.
Despite the setback in the injunction battle, Pepperdine announced that it would continue the legal fight. This decision raises questions about the future of similar disputes. On the one hand, the ruling reinforces the protection of artistic freedom for creators, allowing them to draw more freely from cultural contexts. On the other hand, educational institutions may feel compelled to more actively protect their brands from commercial exploitation. Paradoxically, the case has brought Pepperdine unprecedented media exposure. As one industry commentator noted, “The university is fighting to ensure that the wave of publicity does not overshadow its academic identity.” For the producers of the series, this case serves as a reminder that even artistically justified borrowings require legal due diligence.
The described dispute reveals the tension between the protection of trademarks and the need for artistic expression. The university’s legal defeat, however, does not close the discussion – in an era when universities increasingly operate as global brands, similar conflicts may intensify. For the creators of the series, the lesson is clear: even with the protection of the Rogers test, consciously building “artistic distance” from existing brands remains a necessity. As the example of Running Point shows, the wave of inspiration can sometimes hit an unexpected shore, forcing all parties to rethink their strategies for protecting their own identity.
Fill out the form and we will get back to you within the next … with a preliminary quote.
