Duke vs. The White Lotus: Trademark Drama Unfolds

When HBO’s The White Lotus first aired in July 2021, it was more than just another glossy drama set in paradise. Beneath the palm trees and infinity pools lurked an unsettling sense of chaos one snide comment, a stolen glance, and suddenly the luxurious surface began to crack. As guests with secrets tangled their lives together in exotic resorts, and local staff watched with knowing detachment, the show revealed itself to be a sharp satire about wealth, privilege, and the slow unraveling of appearances. Each season brought a new destination, lush cinematography, and haunting character arcs that quickly propelled The White Lotus into pop culture royalty. Whether it was Reddit threads unpacking its psychological layers or viral memes immortalizing Jennifer Coolidge’s eccentric delivery, the series has become a modern cultural touchstone.

And the numbers back it up. The Season 3 finale, which aired in April 2025, shattered records with 6.2 million viewers on premiere night a 51% jump from the previous season’s finale. The season opener alone pulled in 2.4 million viewers, ballooning to nearly 20 million in just a few weeks. The phenomenon even sparked real-world consequences: Hotels.com reported a 65% increase in searches for the Four Seasons Resort Koh Samui, one of the show’s filming locations, a ripple effect now dubbed the “White Lotus Effect.”

But not all of The White Lotus’s influence has been so sunny.

In one of Season 3’s most emotionally intense scenes, a character is seen wearing a blue T-shirt emblazoned with the iconic Duke University logo. A simple wardrobe choice? Maybe not. That brief appearance ignited a legal and cultural debate that few saw coming. University logos and names have long appeared in movies and TV shows Legally Blonde featured Harvard, while The Mindy Project dropped references to Princeton and Dartmouth typically adding realism or backstory credibility. But these logos aren’t just props. They’re trademarks, carefully guarded by institutions to preserve their brand, reputation, and legacy.

And when a trademark appears in a context that a university deems inappropriate or misaligned with its values, legal issues can arise. After all, trademarks aren’t just about logos, they’re legal tools that safeguard identity and prevent misuse, especially in the high-stakes world of intellectual property.

This article explores the surprisingly tangled intersection of trademark law and pop culture, using The White Lotus and the Duke T-shirt moment as a lens. How do real brands navigate their presence in fictional narratives? When does a shoutout cross the line into infringement? And what happens when legal frameworks clash with artistic freedom? Welcome to the world where entertainment meets intellectual property a realm as dramatic, unpredictable, and layered as the show that sparked the debate

The Scene That Stirred Controversy

Why the Duke University White Lotus trademark dispute matters

In a powerful and emotional scene from “The White Lotus Season 3,” Timothy Ratliff played by Jason Isaacs is shown at a breaking point. A Duke University graduate and businessman under FBI investigation, Ratliff takes a gun from a resort security guard and walks to a quiet, secluded spot, contemplating suicide. As he writes a letter to his family and holds the gun to his head, he’s wearing a gray T-shirt with Duke University’s unmistakable royal-blue logo. The tension builds as he imagines what might happen if he pulls the trigger, but the moment is interrupted by his wife’s sudden arrival, leaving the scene unresolved yet deeply unsettling.

This emotionally intense moment quickly gained attention online. Because it aired during March Madness when Duke’s basketball team was in the spotlight viewers flooded social media with memes. One viral post even joked that if Duke were eliminated early in the tournament, this moment would go down as an “all-time meme.”

But beyond the humor, the scene sparked a serious debate. Many viewers associated the heavy emotions in the scene despair, hopelessness, distress not just with the character, but with the Duke logo clearly displayed on his shirt. According to brand research, when a logo appears in a negative or upsetting context, it can lead to “brand contamination,” where those bad feelings affect how people view the brand itself (Keller, 1993).

For a prestigious university like Duke, which depends on its reputation for excellence and integrity, this connection was troubling. The school criticized the use of its logo in this context, saying it was both unauthorized and misleading. In a public statement, Duke officials called the portrayal “concerning” and said it didn’t align with the university’s values. Their concern was that viewers might wrongly assume Duke supported or was somehow connected to the dark themes shown in the scene.

Frank Tramble, Duke University’s Vice President of Communications, expressed serious concern over the visible display of the university’s logo during a suicide scene in The White Lotus. He explained that it could unintentionally link Duke to mental health crises a particularly sensitive issue on college campuses. Across the U.S., suicide is the second leading cause of death among young people aged 15 to 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), underscoring the mental health challenges many students face.

This troubling reality has fueled a broader national conversation about how suicide is portrayed in the media and its impact on vulnerable audiences. The scene in The White Lotus intensified this discussion, with some critics arguing that tying a respected university’s logo to such a tragic moment might downplay the seriousness of mental health issues.

Tramble also stressed that the use of Duke’s logo in this context could mislead viewers into thinking the university approved of or was involved with the scene. He warned that this kind of confusion could harm Duke’s image and intentions. In response to the growing attention online, Duke has been actively promoting mental health awareness, encouraging students and the public to seek support when needed. This effort reflects the university’s commitment to addressing mental health in a responsible and supportive way.

How fictional stories test real-world brand protection

In the U.S., trademark law governed by the Lanham Act of 1946 protects distinctive names,

logos, symbols, and designs that identify the source of goods or services. Two key sections of this law are especially relevant to the Duke-White Lotus situation:

• Section 32 prohibits unauthorized use of a registered trademark if it is likely to cause consumer confusion.

  
  

• Section 43(a) targets false or misleading uses of trademarks that imply an endorsement, sponsorship, or connection by the trademark owner.

  
  

However, trademark law also includes important protections for free speech. Section 43(c) provides exceptions for noncommercial use, parody, commentary, or criticism, especially when the trademark is not being used to sell a product or service. In these cases, the law balances trademark protection with First Amendment rights.

Duke University has raised concerns that the use of its logo in The White Lotus specifically during a suicide contemplation scene involving a fictional Duke graduate could mislead viewers into thinking the university was associated with or endorsed the content. Duke also argued that such portrayal could negatively impact its reputation, especially in light of the serious mental health crisis among young adults. Suicide is the second leading cause of death for individuals aged 15–24, according to the CDC, making this a particularly sensitive issue on college campuses.

From a legal standpoint, Duke’s concerns would primarily fall under Sections 32 and 43(a) of

the Lanham Act. However, the show does not make any direct claim that Duke endorsed or was affiliated with the scene. The logo appears as part of a fictional character’s backstory, helping to build realism and narrative depth. This type of use may fall under “nominative fair use”, a legal doctrine that permits use of a trademark without permission when:

1. The product or service cannot be readily identified without the use of the trademark;

2. Only as much of the mark is used as is reasonably necessary; and

3. The use does not imply sponsorship or endorsement.

   
   

This principle was established in the 1992 case New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc., and it has been supported in subsequent rulings. Courts have also consistently ruled that trademarks used in expressive works like films, music, or literature are legally protected, provided the usage is artistically relevant and not explicitly misleading.

For example, in Mattel Inc. v. MCA Records Inc., the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of MCA over its use of the “Barbie” name in the satirical pop song Barbie Girl. The court held that the song was a form of parody and artistic expression, and therefore protected under the First Amendment. Importantly, it found no consumer confusion or evidence that Mattel’s brand had suffered actual harm.

Similarly, unless HBO used the Duke logo for commercial promotion or misrepresented the university’s involvement, it is unlikely that Duke’s claims would succeed in court. The logo appears to support the storytelling, not as a marketing tool or product identifier. Courts generally uphold the use of trademarks in narrative or artistic contexts so long as there is no clear intent to mislead or commercially exploit the brand.

Had HBO obtained prior permission from Duke’s trademark office, the university could have negotiated restrictions on how and where its logo appeared. But without that, the law still offers strong protection to artistic works. This case highlights the tension between trademark protection which focuses on preventing consumer confusion—and creative expression, which often involves the use of real-world symbols to tell meaningful stories or critique culture.

SO one can say that while Duke’s concerns about reputation and public perception are understandable, its legal position is not especially strong. Courts have routinely prioritized freedom of artistic expression in situations where trademarks are used in fictional or cultural narratives without misleading the public or profiting from the brand.

A Glimpse Through India’s Legal Lens

Now imagine if The White Lotus had been set in Mumbai instead of Thailand. Suppose a character played by Shah Rukh Khan wore an IIT-Bombay T-shirt while engaging in morally questionable behaviour would it lead to a trademark dispute in India, similar to Duke University’s objections in the U.S.?

Under Indian law, such a case would be governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly Section 29(4), which deals with the unauthorized use of a registered trademark in a way that may harm the mark’s distinctiveness or damage its reputation. The key legal question would be whether the use of the IIT-Bombay logo in a fictional context tarnishes the institution’s public image or misleads viewers into thinking it endorses the content.

A helpful precedent in this regard is the case of Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International. In that case, the Delhi High Court refused to grant an interim injunction against Greenpeace, which had used Tata’s logo in a satirical online video game meant to raise environmental awareness. The court held that Greenpeace’s use of the logo was non-commercial and expressive, aimed at creating public debate rather than exploiting the trademark for profit.

Importantly, the court noted there was no likelihood of confusion among the public regarding Tata’s endorsement of Greenpeace’s views. The decision reaffirmed that when a trademark is used as part of free speech and public interest commentary, such use can override claims of trademark dilution provided there is no misleading connection or commercial gain involved.

Similarly, in The White Lotus, Duke’s logo was used as part of the fictional character’s

background not for promoting products or implying Duke’s approval. If such a case occurred under Indian jurisdiction, the courts would likely examine whether the use of the IIT-Bombay logo was misleading, commercial, or purely expressive. If the use is clearly non-commercial and part of an artistic or narrative work, as in the Tata-Greenpeace case, courts in India may also lean toward protecting creative expression over brand concerns.

So in a hypothetical Indian perspective of this case, under Indian trademark law, fictional use of a real logo like an IIT-Bombay shirt in a dramatic film scene is unlikely to result in successful legal action, unless it can be proven that the use misleads the public or causes real harm to the brand’s reputation or distinctiveness.

Lessons from the Duke hoodie debacle for media and institutions

The Duke White Lotus incident highlights how closely trademark protection and reputation management are now linked in the modern media landscape. In today’s world, where fictional content can instantly influence public perception, universities and brands alike must recognize the legal and reputational risks tied to the unauthorized use of their symbols. As entertainment media increasingly blurs the line between fiction and reality, institutions need to take a more proactive approach by enforcing licensing protocols and strengthening brand identity to guard against unintended associations that may arise in popular culture.

Notably, Duke University has yet to pursue legal action against HBO. This may reflect a strategic decision either to avoid complex litigation over fictional trademark use or to prevent further public attention to the issue. It’s also possible that Duke is considering the legal hurdles involved, including fair use and First Amendment protections. Regardless, the case demonstrates that legal protection and public image are no longer separate concerns. In the age of viral media, they are deeply connected two sides of the same coin that institutions must manage carefully to protect both their rights and their reputations.