Runner up — Cambridge Rowing Limited Founded by Omar Terywall in 2021. Now, it unexpectedly finds itself in a trademark infringement lawsuit with the University of Cambridge. As such, the company rents space and works out of the City of Cambridge Rowing Club. Its goal is to get novices into the sport of rowing and it has hooked more than 5,000 since launching. Among those introduced to rowing are hundreds of local children who have participated in the programs offered by Cambridge Rowing.
The dispute grew out of a 2022 application from Terywall to trademark the name “Cambridge Rowing.” A few months later, the University of Cambridge opposed this application. The university has recently won trademarks for “Cambridge.” These trademarks extend into a number of classes, including class 41 which protects education, entertainment, and sporting and cultural activities, including sport camp services. Terywall’s trademark application would like to trademark the company logo in several different classes. This extends all the way to class 25 for athletic apparel, class 35 for merchandising, and class 41 for corporate entertainment, sports events and sports training.
In defense of its objection, a spokesperson for the University of Cambridge stated, “If there is no protection, fraudulent use would increase.” They argued the importance of protecting trademarks to stop consumer confusion. Terywall argues that the university’s actions resemble bullying tactics against a small business that simply wants to promote rowing in the community.
“When you’ve got a very big organisation like them coming after you, it is pretty scary.” – Omar Terywall
The larger question at stake in this dispute is who really owns these common geographical and activity-related terms. For example, Terywall argues that “Cambridge” and “rowing” are part of the public domain. He remarked, “Nobody really owns the right to the word ‘Cambridge’ and nobody can say that they own the word ‘rowing’ either – it belongs to all of us.”
The university has become known for years of opposition to the branding attempts of Cambridge-based companies that seek to include “Cambridge” in their name or logo. This factor makes the evolving government situation even more difficult to navigate. Terywall’s for-profit company provides a pretty cool service, the “Cambridge Rowing Experience.” This one-of-a-kind experience runs right out of the City of Cambridge Rowing Club.
Additionally, the university has a very strong brand presence. According to Terywall it isn’t right for the institution to attempt to claim ownership over terms that have been a key part of the local culture for ages. He expressed frustration over the university’s stance, stating, “To take ownership of the word ‘Cambridge’ and the word ‘rowing’ – it’s bonkers.”
Legal experts are closely monitoring the situation. Trademark attorney Liz Ward weighed in with her perspectives on this unusual dispute. She thinks that the university has little chance of prevailing with respect to class 41 but she does point out that there are legitimate branding concerns in many of the other contested classes. She noted, “You could say ‘Well, that’s something that is synonymous more with the university than it is with a newly formed company.’”
A full trial on the merits was held in 2025 to meet this billboard-sized trademark challenge. We may get a decision from the New Jersey Turnpike Authority in the next few months. This enforcement case is a key reminder. Specifically, it notes the need to strike a balance between intellectual property protection and ensuring local creative enterprises can prosper within their communities.