Cambridge University has beaten a small local rowing business in court and has won a case regarding the use of trademarks. The University of Cambridge opposed a trademark application from the company through use of the UK Intellectual Property Office. The university was successful in its appeal based on the fact that allowing the private business to have the same branding (name and logo) would be unfairly taking advantage of the good will of the University of Cambridge.
Background: Prestige Versus Local Business
The dispute began in early 2022 when Omar Terywall, owner of Cambridge Rowing Limited, applied to register a federal trademark for his company’s logo. Terywall launched the “Cambridge Rowing Experience” in 2021 and has provided more than 5,000 novices with introductory classes on the River Cam. However, the university—legally referred to as The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge—has filed a notice of objection against Terywall’s application for a trademark. The university owns the trademark rights to use the word “Cambridge,” a remedy the university utilizes to avoid having its brand diluted by third-party businesses.
The Decision: A “Nudge and a Wink”
In the July 2, 2015, hearing the university’s Barrister, Mr. Guy Tritton, contended that the rowing company’s logo which features a crossing rowing blade logo with a shield was a “nudge and a wink” intended to promote the university’s world-famous rowing history. The written ruling by the Hearing Officer of the IPO, Ms. Rosie Le Breton, stated as follows:
Likelihood of Confusion: There is a serious chance of the public associating the rowing company’s athletic services to that of the university.
Unfair Benefit: The university would be “receiving an unfair benefit” due to the investment made by the university in building its reputation and image.
Commercial Benefit: The trademark will give the rowing company a competitive advantage due to the university’s well-publicised events and accomplishments.
What Happens Next?
The IPO denied the trademark application and ordered Terywall to pay £2,400 to the university in legal costs.
The Founder’s Response:
According to Terywall, the “legal process was a terrifying ordeal” and expressed concern for the greater community as well. He stated, “I’m beyond disappointed in the outcome”; residents may be outraged by an individual’s ability to exert such dominance over the name of the city
University’s Position:
According to a representative from the university, their initial goal was to create an agreement whereby Terywall could continue to conduct his business with no requirement to license the trademark from the university. After negotiations failed, the university decided that they had no choice but to act to prohibit third parties from benefitting from or becoming associated with the university’s reputation whether by intention or accident.
Mr. Terywall has until March 3 to file an official appeal.
