Did Cambridge University Just Win a Major Rowing Trademark Battle?

The University of Cambridge has successfully blocked Cambridge Rowing Limited from trademarking its name, arguing that such a move would unfairly exploit the university's reputation. The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) upheld this decision, citing the potential confusion and detriment to the university's brand. Cambridge Rowing's founder, Omar Terywall, plans to appeal the ruling, expressing disappointment at the outcome and its implications for local enterprises.

Last updated: 3 October 2023 (BST)

What’s happening now

The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has ruled against Cambridge Rowing Limited’s trademark application, determining that registering the logo would likely cause confusion with the University of Cambridge's established brand. This ruling protects the university's significant investment in its reputation and image, which is integral to its identity as a leading educational institution. The decision has sparked a broader conversation about trademark rights and the implications for local businesses attempting to operate under names associated with renowned entities.

Key takeaways

The University of Cambridge successfully opposed Cambridge Rowing Limited's trademark application.
The IPO found a "likelihood of confusion" between the two entities.
Cambridge Rowing must pay £2,400 in costs to the university.
Omar Terywall plans to appeal the decision, citing disappointment and concerns for local business.
The university initially sought a compromise before proceeding with legal action.

Timeline: how we got here

The dispute over the trademark for "Cambridge Rowing" has unfolded over several key dates:

2021: Omar Terywall establishes Cambridge Rowing Limited and begins operating on the River Cam.
January 2022: Terywall applies to trademark the company's logo.
2 July 2025: The IPO hearing takes place to discuss the trademark application.
3 October 2023: The IPO rules against Cambridge Rowing, citing potential brand confusion.
3 March 2024: Deadline for Cambridge Rowing to file an appeal against the IPO's decision.

What’s new vs what’s known

New today/this week

The IPO's decision to reject Cambridge Rowing's trademark application is a significant development, highlighting the university's ongoing efforts to protect its brand. The ruling reinforces the university's exclusive rights over the trademarked term "Cambridge" and sets a precedent for similar future cases.

What was already established

The University of Cambridge has held trademarks for its name for several years, previously opposing other businesses that sought to use "Cambridge" in their names. The university's reputation is built on its historical prestige and academic achievements, which it actively protects against potential misuse by third parties.

Impact for the UK

Consumers and households

For consumers and local residents, this ruling may initially seem restrictive but ultimately serves to maintain the integrity of the University of Cambridge's brand. The protection of well-known trademarks ensures that consumers are not misled by businesses attempting to capitalise on the university's reputation. However, it raises questions about the ability of local businesses to thrive under names that may reference the city's historical institutions.

Businesses and jobs

The outcome may deter other local enterprises from using names that could be seen as infringing upon the university's trademarks. For businesses like Cambridge Rowing, which aim to promote local culture and activities, the ruling could hinder growth. There is a potential chilling effect on new ventures that may wish to incorporate "Cambridge" into their branding, raising concerns about innovation and entrepreneurship in the city.

Policy and regulation

The case underscores the complexities surrounding trademark law in the UK. It highlights the balance that must be struck between protecting established brands and allowing new businesses to flourish. As the IPO continues to navigate these issues, there may be calls for clearer guidelines on the use of geographic names in branding, particularly in cities with notable institutions.

Numbers that matter

5,000: The number of novices introduced to rowing by Cambridge Rowing since its inception.
£2,400: The costs ordered by the IPO for Cambridge Rowing to pay to the University of Cambridge.
2021: The year Cambridge Rowing Limited was established.
3 March 2024: The deadline for an appeal against the IPO's decision.
2 July 2025: The date of the IPO hearing that led to the ruling.

Definitions and jargon buster

IPO: Intellectual Property Office, the UK government body responsible for intellectual property rights.
Trademark: A legal right that protects brands, logos, and names used in commerce.
Brand confusion: A situation in which consumers might confuse one product or service with another due to similar branding.

How to think about the next steps

Near term (0–4 weeks)

As Cambridge Rowing considers its appeal options, stakeholders should monitor the company's next steps and any developments in its legal strategy. Additionally, the university may issue further statements regarding its trademark policies and future intentions.

Medium term (1–6 months)

The outcome of the appeal, if pursued, will be crucial for both parties. A resolution may lead to new discussions about branding and trademark usage in the city, potentially influencing local business practices and policies.

Signals to watch

The response from Cambridge Rowing regarding its appeal and any public statements made by the university.
Future trademark applications submitted by local businesses that may reference "Cambridge."
Discussions around trademark law and policy changes that may arise from this case.

Practical guidance

Do

Research existing trademarks before naming a business or product.
Consider alternative branding that does not infringe on established trademarks.
Engage in discussions with trademark attorneys for guidance on applications.

Don’t

Assume that using a geographic name is permissible without checking trademark status.
Neglect to seek legal advice when faced with potential trademark disputes.
Ignore feedback from established entities when naming a business.

Checklist

Verify trademark registrations in your sector before launching a new brand.
Consult with legal experts about the implications of trademark law.
Develop a unique brand identity that avoids confusion with existing trademarks.
Stay informed about ongoing trademark disputes that may affect your business.
Engage with local business networks for support and advice.

Risks, caveats, and uncertainties

The outcome of the appeal remains uncertain, and there are risks associated with pursuing legal action against a well-established entity like the University of Cambridge. Additionally, the interpretation of trademark law can vary, and future rulings may set different precedents. Businesses should proceed with caution when developing branding strategies that may infringe on existing trademarks.

Bottom line

The ruling against Cambridge Rowing Limited highlights the complexities of trademark law and the protection of established brands. As the company considers an appeal, local businesses must navigate the delicate balance between leveraging a geographic name and respecting the intellectual property rights of established institutions. The implications of this case extend beyond just one company, affecting the broader landscape of entrepreneurship in Cambridge.

FAQs

What does the ruling mean for Cambridge Rowing Limited?

The ruling means Cambridge Rowing Limited cannot trademark its logo due to the risk of confusion with the University of Cambridge's established brand, which has significant legal protection.

Can Cambridge Rowing appeal the decision?

Yes, Cambridge Rowing Limited has the right to appeal the IPO's decision, with the deadline for filing an appeal set for 3 March 2024.

Why does the University of Cambridge protect its trademark?

The University of Cambridge protects its trademark to maintain its prestigious reputation and to prevent third parties from profiting from its established brand, ensuring that consumers are not misled.