We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
As the anticipation for the Olympics grows, companies big and
small look to grab the attention of these fans by associating
themselves with the games. For the Olympics, the host
organizing committee, individual country committees, and television
partners this means big business by selling sponsorships and
licensing use of their intellectual property.
Marketing and advertising as a sponsor of the Olympics offer
huge potential benefits for companies, and large companies pay
millions of dollars to associate themselves with the games.
For advertisers that venture into this area of advertising and
marketing, there are significant inherent legal risks in
associating your company with Olympic indicia, trademarks and
slogans and other intellectual property without
permission.
Companies thinking of entering this arena will want to take
proper steps to ensure they are adequately protected.
Companies that operate outside the rules could find themselves on
the wrong end of a legal action.
In the United States, the U.S. Olympic Committee
("USOC") and the International Olympic Committee
("IOC"), sells sponsorships and licenses use of their
intellectual property, which is big business for these Olympic
Committees. While most of the headlines about Olympic
marketing and advertising are focused on the impact of these large
sponsorships on company bottom lines and in advancing the events,
what has received less coverage has been that behind the Games,
many well-known companies have tussled with the USOC regarding
guerrilla marketing techniques.
Every two years, many companies that seek to associate
themselves with Olympic trademarks to advertise their products and
services find out the hard way that if Olympic indicia are used,
both the advertiser and product or service provider may face
statutory liability from the USOC, which is granted the rights to
such marks in the United States.
Since the 1950s, a special act of the U.S. Congress gives the
USOC the exclusive rights to any symbol consisting of five
interlocking rings as well as other "Olympic" mark
rights. The law grants the USOC the ability to seek an injunction
and treble damages in a civil action for any "uses for the
purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or
to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or
competition" of the above terms and emblems without the
consent of the Committee.
Unlike typical infringement claims, a claim of likelihood of
confusion is not necessary for the USOC to prevail. In addition,
the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 includes special
provisions for counterfeit uses of the Olympic trademarks. These
provisions include criminal penalties, right of seizure by ex parte
application, and award of attorneys' fees and wrongful profits.
In addition, there may be liability under other federal and state
statutes and exposure for lost profits and attorneys' fees
depending upon the cause of action. Further, other rights holders
may be able to assert claims depending on the alleged
infringement.
In years of policing its marks, the USOC, along with affiliated
local host committees and the IOC, has sent out hundreds of cease
and desist orders and has filed lawsuits alleging trademark
infringement of Olympic symbols. For the 2012 Games, the
London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games also has special
legal protections and also has aggressively protected its
intellectual property.
In light of the aggressive position taken by the USOC to protect
its statutorily-protected marks and other related marks, and other
protections afforded the Olympics, the key to minimizing risk in
this area is to understand the protection afforded Olympic indicia
and to steer clear of potential uses unless authorized.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Last week, by virtue of a 63-30 procedural vote, the Senate moved forward with a bill called the Marketplace Fairness Act, with a final Senate vote set for May 6, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Corporate tweeters or bloggers – employees who post promotional and often entertaining commentary on behalf of their employers’ businesses – add much of their own personal brand – their voice, their opinions, their snarky remarks – to the information they are disseminating on the company’s behalf.
No blog can really take itself seriously unless it's written about Lindsay Lohan. Plus our Marketing Department claims she'll do wonders for our search rankings.
In a First Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry released at the end of March in a proceeding begun in 2003, the Federal Communications Commission continued its comprehensive review of its rules, policies and procedures governing radiofrequency radiation and limits on exposure to human beings.
