"It was a community service," Fineberg said yesterday. "That kind of public gesture shouldn't be abused."

Fineberg added that the University does not want to remove the name or to collect fees from it. However, the current arrangement is an "implied license," he said.

"Our lawyers see that as the University has rights to protect its name," he said. "We want an explicit license. We think that both parties could benefit from that type of clarity, especially at no cost [to Harvard Pilgrim]."

The move to federal court is "the best way to defend ourselves," he added.

In considering options to save the beleaguered HMO, state-appointed receivers, including Reilly, considered making the plan for-profit. While this option was not chosen, it remains a real possibility if Pilgrim faces future financial troubles.

In the letter, Fineberg wrote that "the assertion that the Harvard name is an asset of Harvard Pilgrim that could be sold at will is a new and particular concern for us."

But in their lawsuit, the state argues that Harvard Pilgrim has used the name for decades without objection.