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. But as recent news reports indicate
(e.g., click here or here), for non-sponsors, ambush marketing
related to the Olympics can mean big headaches.
Marketing and advertising as a sponsor of the Olympics offers
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 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 also has received 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. For
decades, 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. 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.
As is well known, patent trolls often threaten dozens of alleged infringers in the hope of scoring quick license fees from those who understandably prefer to provide a modest payoff, thereby avoiding expensive and protracted litigation.
In order to best protect the IP rights of a U.S. company seeking to produce goods through a Chinese manufacturer by providing a protected design, the U.S. company needs to take actions even before the contracting stages.
On November 12, 2012, the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of issued the Draft Rules on Inventor-Employee Inventions for public comment, and this article seeks to reconcile the different provisions between the Implementing Rules and the Draft Rules.
A discussion following Shepard Fairey pleading guilty to the misdemeanor charge of criminal contempt for destroying and altering documents in his civil lawsuit against The Associated Press.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of seven film studios finding that the defendant induced third parties to download infringing copies of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.
2013 IP Developments (Video Content)
