As March Madness dominates TVs in sports bars across the country, few names command attention like Duke University. It’s one of the most recognizable—and polarizing—brands in college athletics.

But in March 2025, Duke’s brand found itself in a different kind of controversy. Not in an arena, but in a hotel room—specifically, a fictional hotel room on HBO’s drama The White Lotus. In a scene from the show’s third season, a character named Timothy Ratliff, played by Jason Isaacs, appears wearing a Duke T-shirt while alone and visibly distressed. As the episode unfolds, Ratliff grapples with a pending investigation and a spiraling personal life, and the Duke shirt is in clear view during a moment in which he contemplates suicide.

While The White Lotus is known for its biting satire and symbolic visuals, Duke University took no comfort in being cast, even indirectly, as a backdrop for such a bleak depiction. The university swiftly issued a public rebuke, condemning the use of its trademark and suggesting legal action could follow.

Frank Tramble, Duke’s Vice President for Communications, Marketing, and Public Affairs, made the university’s position clear: “The White Lotus not only uses our brand without permission, but in our view uses it on imagery that is troubling, does not reflect our values or who we are, and simply goes too far.” He further underscored the sensitivity of the subject, pointing out that “suicide is the second-leading cause of death on college campuses.”

The concern, in Duke’s view, was not simply about unauthorized use, but about implied association. If audiences see the Duke brand prominently displayed in a scene about suicide, the argument goes, they may associate Duke—consciously or not—with the narrative.

This isn’t about confusion in the traditional trademark sense (no one thinks Duke University produced The White Lotus), but about reputational harm. That brings us into the realm of trademark dilution—and specifically, tarnishment.

Under the federal Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TDRA), the owner of a famous mark may sue for dilution by tarnishment when someone uses their mark in a way that harms its reputation, even without causing confusion.

Tarnishment usually arises when a mark is associated with unsavory, lewd, or socially damaging material—such as pornography, illegal drugs, or violent imagery. The theory is that the association weakens the positive connotation the brand has built over time. Duke’s could potentially claim that suicide is a sufficiently serious and sensitive topic to meet that threshold.

But tarnishment claims are not absolute. Creative works like films, television shows, books, and songs are protected under the First Amendment, even when they use trademarks. That principle was solidified in the seminal 1989 case Rogers v. Grimaldi where the Second Circuit crafted a now widely adopted balancing test.

Under Rogers, the use of a trademark in an expressive work is protected unless:

1. The use has no artistic relevance to the underlying work; or
2. The use explicitly misleads as to the source or content of the work.

Courts across the country, including the Ninth and Sixth Circuits, have adopted or cited this standard. The threshold for artistic relevance is intentionally low—any minimally relevant connection suffices. And for the second prong, the bar for finding “explicitly misleading” conduct is high. It requires more than mere implication; it requires something like a false statement or an express claim of endorsement.

In The White Lotus, the use of the Duke T-shirt likely passes the Rogers test easily. The character is portrayed as a once-powerful, highly educated figure grappling with moral and emotional collapse. The Duke apparel signals social status, elite academic ties, and a fall from grace. That’s clearly relevant artistically.

There is also no deception. The show never states or implies that Duke endorses the character, the show, or the themes explored in the scene. The university’s name appears only on a shirt—used as wardrobe, not as a commercial device.

Similarly, in Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Mattel sued over the song “Barbie Girl,” claiming the band Aqua tarnished the Barbie brand. The Ninth Circuit famously rejected the claim, concluding that the First Amendment outweighed trademark concerns.

Likewise, in Louis Vuitton v. Warner Bros., the court ruled that a character’s complaint about a “Louis Vuitton” bag in The Hangover Part II—even though the bag was fake—was protected artistic speech. The mere mention of the mark didn’t suggest endorsement or cause actionable harm.

Duke may argue its case is more serious, given the subject matter. While the Supreme Court in Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products narrowed the scope of Rogers by holding that it does not apply when a mark is used as a trademark—i.e., to identify the source of the accused party’s own goods—the Court expressly left Rogers intact for expressive uses in works like films and television.6 In short, Jack Daniel’s reinforced the idea that when a mark is used purely for storytelling or character development, the First Amendment still provides strong protection.

Duke’s objection to The White Lotus reflects a growing tension between brand protection and creative freedom. While trademark law offers remedies for misuse, expressive works like television dramas enjoy broad First Amendment protection—especially under the Rogers test. Any future claim by Duke would be unlikely to succeed. But in the court of public opinion, the university has already made its point.

For content creators and rights holders alike, the real lesson may be this: even when the law is clear, the optics still matter.