Regent University, an evangelical Christian institution in the US, sounds like a one-off.

¡°Focused strategy and Divine Providence have accelerated Regent¡¯s reputation as a global center for Christian thought and action,¡± says the website of the institution, founded in 1978 as Christian Broadcasting Network University by television evangelist Pat Robertson, who recently accused gay men of knowingly spreading HIV by shaking hands using special rings.

But the US institution, which started using its current title in 1989, is suing the newly named Regent¡¯s University London in a UK trademark case, alleging that students and employers could confuse the two bodies.

According to a transcript of an interim court judgment, Regent University has also claimed that confusion over the name might damage its ¡°reputation among other evangelical Christians¡± ¨C citing the case of a Regent¡¯s University London academic who welcomed the advent of gay marriage in England and Wales in a university press release.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

The case may also raise legal questions about the way the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills grants university status to private institutions.

A July judgment in the England and Wales Patents County Court, where the US university is suing for trademark infringement, provides details of the case.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

The dispute began last year when Regent¡¯s University London, a private charitable institution formerly known as Regent¡¯s College, invited comments on its proposed new title.

The process established by BIS for private providers seeking university title, carried out under company name legislation, leaves it to the applicant to consult over the proposed name.

This is different from the traditional route to the title used by publicly funded institutions, where the Privy Council also has a role in deciding on the name.

Regent¡¯s University London contacted Regent University and others, seeking their views on the title. The US university objected, but after the deadline set by the UK institution for responses: by that time, Regent¡¯s University London had already contacted BIS to say there had been a positive response from all but seven of 167 respondents.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

Aldwyn Cooper, vice-chancellor of Regent¡¯s University London, told ³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ that his institution had not passed the Regent University objection on to BIS because it ¡°had not come back¡± in the allotted time period. He rejected any suggestion there could be confusion between the two institutions.

Dennis Farrington, visiting fellow at the Oxford Centre for ³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ Policy Studies and co-author of The Law of ³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ, said that the title legislation binding publicly funded universities ¡°requires the Privy Council to have regard to avoiding names that may be confusing¡±.

But he added that he could not see ¡°any equivalent as such¡± in the company name legislation used by BIS for private providers.

Regent¡¯s University London has filed its own legal action in a European court, seeking to have Regent University¡¯s trademark on its name revoked in the European Union.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

In the July judgment in the England and Wales court, a judge rejected the argument for an injunction forcing Regent¡¯s University London to change its name.

Both legal cases continue.

A Regent University spokeswoman said there was ¡°substantial evidence of confusion on the part of students and others¡± following the name change at Regent¡¯s University London.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

john.morgan@tsleducation.com