Skip to content 
Cambridge University has lost a trademark dispute with Cambridge NeuroTech over the use of the word “Cambridge”. This follows a trend of the University opposing trademark applications for anyone who wishes to use the city’s name in their company name. This article will explore why Cambridge University has chosen to do this over the years, the outcomes, and the possible effects of this in the future.
Cambridge University Vs Cambridge NeuroTech
In 2017, Tahl Holtzman applied to trademark the name of his company- Cambridge Neurotech. This was formally opposed 5 minutes before the deadline by Cambridge University by “the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge“.
The university holds trademarks for “Cambridge” in several classes, for both goods and services that cover a wide range of items such as stickers, bibles, and university education services. This trademark is an attempt to stop others using “Cambridge” in a way they feel that their brand and reputation may be harmed.
Mr Holtzman says the university filed “350 pages of evidence” for his case, driving up his firm’s legal fees. The 18-month legal battle cost Cambridge NeuroTech £30,000 and resulted in the company being allowed to register a trademark for goods but not services. Mr Holtzman has said, “It’s quite bizarre for any entity to claim they own a geographical location
“I think it’s particularly unhelpful – indeed harmful – in the Cambridge bubble for the university to stifle start-ups who quite rightly want to say ‘We are located in Cambridge, therefore it’s part of our trading name and trademark’.”
Other trademark disputes of Cambridge University
The trademark dispute against Cambridge NeuroTech is not the first time Cambridge University has tried to block trademark attempts of companies in Cambridge. Some notable trademark applications that have been disputed by Cambridge University are: Cambridge Football Club, Cambridge Rowing, Cambridge Blue Lager, and Cambridge Molecular. Despite these attempts to control the trademark name of “Cambridge”, companies that work in unrelated fields have been free to use the city’s name in theirs.
In one case, the chief executive of Cambridge Clinical Laboratories says the company spent £26,000 fighting the trademark registration against Cambridge University. Another company- Cambridge Quantum Computing- claimed to have spent more than £50,000 preparing its case. It was revealed in Cambridge University’s Press & Assessment 2022-23 Annual Report that the organisation hit £1 billion in revenue for the first time, a considerably higher amount than the companies they chose to dispute trademarks with. Despite the advantages the University has in these cases, the most common outcome is the companies being successful in their application but with some restrictions.
In a statement, a university spokesperson says “polling shows that the vast majority of the public associate the word ‘Cambridge’ with the University, especially in education, research, innovation and related areas”.
The statement continues: “We protect the Cambridge name where there’s a risk of confusion with the work of the University. This is to prevent people from being misled and to support our global mission in education, research and innovation.
“We do not claim to own the rights to Cambridge across all fields of activity and have never done so.
“Our aim is always to work with people to agree on a way forward that is beneficial to everyone involved.
“We will only pursue legal action if we believe our rights are being infringed, or if organisations are trying to trade on the University’s reputation or mislead the public into thinking their products and services are associated with us.”
Conclusion
These cases of Cambridge University Vs Cambridge companies show that smaller companies are able to win in “David vs Goliath” situations. Although Cambridge University may not have bad intentions when objecting to trademark applications, they often cause smaller companies to lose out on a lot of time and money. It is important for the courts to stay consistent with their rulings, to ensure fairness and also to give confidence for other companies who find themselves in similar situations having to fight a case against a bigger brand.
