An Intellectual Property Office (IPO) ruling has declared that private rowing company ‘Cambridge Rowing Limited’ cannot trademark its name.

According to a report published by IPO hearing officer Rosie Le Breton, Cambridge Rowing Limited cannot register this trademark as it would create confusion between the University’s official rowing club and the private company.

The report explains that similarities in the name and logo would allow Cambridge Rowing Ltd to “benefit unfairly from the significant investment made by the opponent in its mark and the resulting reputation and image of prestige created by its widely publicised achievements, without any financial compensation being paid to the opponent”.

Cambridge Rowing Ltd markets itself as a ‘Cambridge Rowing Experience’ and offers a range of activities and services for people who want to try rowing on the River Cam. The company’s website states that it not affiliated with the University in any way.

Following founder Omar Terywall’s decision to file for the trademark of Cambridge Rowing Ltd in 2022, the University objected on the grounds that the similarity in logo and name would “take unfair advantage from the use of its mark” given the University’s reputation in rowing.

The IPO agreed, ruling that customers would associate the company with the University’s “strong reputation for services relating to rowing” due to “the identical element of the applicant’s mark alongside its rowing theme, thereby securing a commercial advantage as a direct benefit of the opponent’s reputation”.

Terywall told the BBC that he hoped to appeal the decision.

“I’m saddened,” he told Varsity, “but we’re up against Goliath here”.

The company owner added: “We have received hundreds of messages of support from across the country, but mostly from Cambridge.

“What stood out the most was that none of them knew that the University had a trademark for the word Cambridge – this was all news to them and something that they have all expressed their frustration at.”

This follows previous disputes between the University and other local firms – including Cambridge Quantum Computing and Cambridge NeuroTech – regarding the use of the name ‘Cambridge’.

“It’s wholly unfair that one institution, no matter how much it has contributed to the city, has the rights to the City name,” said Terywall. “What I offer doesn’t impact the University in any way.”

A University spokesperson commented: “In the first instance, the University sought a compromise that would work for both parties, approaching discussions cooperatively and with no wish to stop the applicant trading. Regrettably, the applicant declined.

“At that point, the University had to oppose the application as it is often subject to third parties adopting names which deliberately or otherwise seek to gain advantage from the University’s reputation.

“That matters. For example, time and again, ‘Cambridge’ summer schools and other organisations trade unfairly off the University’s international standing and renown, causing families worldwide to be misled.”