University of Cambridge and Local Company in Dispute Over 'Cambridge' Name

The University of Cambridge has recently found itself embroiled in a legal dispute surrounding the use of the word 'Cambridge' in trademarks. The controversy arose when a local company, Cambridge Neurotech, sought to trademark its name, prompting opposition from the prestigious institution. This conflict raises vital questions about the extent to which entities can claim rights to geographical locations, shedding light on the nuances of trademark ownership and the balance between protecting a brand and allowing for fair competition.


Igor Demcak

Details of the case

In 2017, Tahl Holtzman applied to register a trademark for the name of his company, 'Cambridge Neurotech'. However, the University of Cambridge formally opposed this application minutes before the registration deadline. While the University does not assert exclusive ownership of the word 'Cambridge,' it does possess trademarks for the term in specific categories such as 'university education services,' 'bibles,' and 'stickers.' These trademarks give the University the right to object to the use of the city's name if it potentially conflicts with their brand or creates confusion regarding ownership.

The current case is not an isolated incident, as the University has previously opposed multiple trademark applications that include the city's name. Examples include objections to 'Cambridge Blue' (a beer), 'Cambridge Football Club,' and 'Cambridge Rowing.' According to the institution, these actions demonstrate the University's commitment to maintaining its brand integrity across diverse sectors.

A spokesperson for the University emphasized that public perception significantly associates the term 'Cambridge' with the institution, particularly in the realms of education, research, and innovation. Their stance on trademark objections aligns with the aim of safeguarding against potential confusion and protecting their global mission in education, research, and innovation. Importantly, the University clarified that it does not assert rights to 'Cambridge' across all fields and only intervenes when potential infringement or misrepresentation is at stake.

Trademarking Geographical Locations

Beyond the specific dispute, there is a broader discussion over the question of whether a single entity can legitimately trademark a geographical location's name. Traditionally, trademarks are granted to protect distinctive brand elements associated with products or services. However, when it comes to geographic identifiers, the legal landscape becomes more complex.

One of the primary challenges is the potential for monopolization, where a single entity, whether it be a corporation, institution, or individual, asserts exclusive control over a geographical name. This monopolistic control can impede fair market competition, limiting other entities' ability to use the same name, even if they have legitimate reasons for doing so. Such monopolization might not only stifle innovation but also hinder the diversity of voices and ideas that can emerge from various entities operating within a shared geographical space.

Legally, a geographical name is generally considered a public asset, and exclusive rights to it may not be granted easily. While it is uncommon for an entity to claim exclusive rights to a city or region, trademarks may be granted for specific categories of goods or services associated with that location. In the case of Cambridge University, their trademarks are focused on areas directly related to their core functions, ensuring that their brand remains distinctive in fields where confusion could be detrimental.

Igor Demcak
Igor Demcak

Trademark Attorney

Founder of Trama

7 year experience in IP protection

Gain more insights about the importance of brand in your industry through our selection of indicators and case studies.

Hero - education industry