Businesses can't use the word "olympic" because of congress
philly.com
philly.com
"We believe using the name ‘Ravelympics' for a competition that involves an afghan marathon, scarf hockey and sweater triathlon, among others, tends to denigrate the true nature of the Olympic Games," the letter from USOC said. "In a sense, it is disrespectful to our country's finest athletes and fails to recognize or appreciate their hard work."
Uhhh... and McD's & Coca-Cola's sponsorship is not an insult to athletes?
I really would like to know how this organization has gotten so much power.
EDIT: I'm curious how this paint company has kept the name: http://www.olympic.com/ Were they granted the trademark earlier? Plus the paint brush is a play on the torch. They have the domain name, so someone at the usoc must have seen them.
Some how congress has seen that the US Olympics are a source of national pride and a treasure to be protected by an act for the good of everyone. This is way more than trademark protection.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title36/html/USCODE...
While I'm sure it's been done in other places the only other case I know of is something similar with the Red Cross.
In contrast, in years past, I was able to use the words "IRS" on a product and even received clearance from IRS legal council in writing as confirmation.
But in its email, the organization emphasized the need to "protect the rights of companies who financially support the U.S. Olympic Team," such as McDonald's and Coca-Cola."
According to the article, Olympic Paints were grandfathered in, as they were using the name prior to 1978.
I tend to agree that they'd be better served by not enforcing it so strictly. The games, after all, are a shared party for all of humanity. I think there's a strong case to be made for simple, celebratory use (for things like knitting more than for gyros, I'd say though).
But legally, there's just not much here. Clearly the marks are protectable, and someone needs to manage them. Congress picked the USOC.
The marks don't need to be protected. Congress could treat them as part of the public domain, just like (say) photographs taken by government employees as part of their job. But unfortunately the Olympics are a money making venture, and the sentiment
> The games... are a shared party for all of humanity
ceased to govern the Olympic committee a long time ago.
Sorry, I just don't find that interesting. It's OK to whine about the USOC being jerks, because I agree that they are. But trying to hold this up as an example of the evils of government is just silly.
Are? Or ought to be?
This is a key move on the part of the olympic committee no doubt in order to not give any legs to a story that might not play way in a year that the games are going on. In a sense they are taking the wind out of his sails by appearing to be fair and reasonable.
OK, with that off my chest...
What struck me first and foremost is that the interlocking ring logo is probably the source of the issue. That has to be copyrighted and owned by the USOC. That being said, the word "Olympic" has been around for long enough that saying, "Hey, we own that word in any context" seems ridiculous, especially in areas where local features are similarly named (@bcl).
Referring to a contest as the XYZ Olympics (or variant thereof) seems to be slightly more reasonable as a case for infringement, but the term has become so common use that I think you could argue that it's public domain (e.g., fridge). Maybe they're stepping up enforcement for that reason.
No one's going to confuse the Beer Olympics with the 2012 Games, and no one's going to confuse a delicious gyro with Usain Bolt.
How is that a pun?
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/522/
(Edit: Posted link for background cases are not similar..)
On the other hand, in the case posted by the OP, the likelihood of confusion is to my mind, non-existent. No reasonable person would be confused into thinking the body responsible for holding the Olympics was branching out into gyros.
I suppose it could also be argued that the usage is detrimental to the trade mark but that point is undermined by the approved association with fast food/sugary drinks.
Nobody is going to think a diner has any relation to the official games.
How do you know? Be specific.
is this specific enough?
"I can assure you that Obama wouldn't be happy if his daughter became a porn star".
"Oh yeah, how do you know that he wouldn't be happy? Do you know him and have you spoken to him about that specifically????"
There's a tendency on HN (and other places) to make statements based on "facts" that aren't actually known by the person making the claim.
> "I can assure you that Obama wouldn't be happy if his daughter became a porn star".
Unless you have specific knowledge about Obama, you can't accurately "assure" that. Yes, it's likely that Obama, like most fathers, would prefer that his daughters not be porn stars, but some fathers are different in this respect. To "assure" in this case requires Obama-specific information.
> Oh yeah, how do you know that he wouldn't be happy? Do you know him and have you spoken to him about that specifically????"
You seem to think that that's wrong. How about explaining why? I agree that speaking to Obama isn't necessary, but surely some Obama-specific information is. Do you disagree?
Playboy puts out an annual edition called the girls of the ACC, going to college campuses' to recruit.
In that context, I don't see anyone who was shamed by participating, and some people I know had relatives who were "okay" with it... albeit not ecstatic.
Seeing how nuanced the above can become, lets look at the USOC....
1. Do they have government oversight?
2. Are they required to pick the highest bidder?
3. Can they legally say X is not acceptable by community standards? Whose standards? Why would pornography be against community standards (nationwide) if it isn't consider obscene (legally speaking)?
Now I bet you that no porn company has actually tried to make a case, but it'd be interesting to see how far they could go with one.
> is this specific enough?
It's "specific" but not evidence. You're assuming that they'd say no.
Moreover, your claim was "any offer". Do you really think that they'd turn down $1T?
See the Amateur Sports Act of 1978.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/10017011...
They have also been taking action against small businesses in a similar manner for using the logo without permission.