Businesses can't use the word "olympic" because of congress(philly.com)
philly.com
Businesses can't use the word "olympic" because of congress
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120711_Reading_Terminal_shop_gets_Olympic-sized_reprimand.html
39 comments
The problem is the hypocrisy. Every other organization in the U.S. can trademark their name, but only in their industry. The USOC does not sell gyros, meat, wine or movies.
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.
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.
"how this organization has gotten so much power."
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.
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.
I think it probably has something do with this:
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."
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."
The article says: A grandfather clause allows businesses named before 1978, like Olympic Paints, to keep the name
Or mountains for that matter. It would have been a trademark mess if Seattle had ever gotten the games.
According to the article, Olympic Paints were grandfathered in, as they were using the name prior to 1978.
According to the article, Olympic Paints were grandfathered in, as they were using the name prior to 1978.
Re: Olympic paint - towards the end of the article, they refer to a grandfather clause for names established before 1978.
When you are bidding on the Olympics, laws like this tend to get passed.
Two possible reasons:
1) Grandfather clause for businesses using "Olympic" at the time the name was passed; and
2) Geographic exception for businesses within a certain distance of the Olympic mountains in Washington, but only within the state of Washington.
This is a little spun. Certainly "Olympic" in the context of the games (e.g. "Ravelympics", which was clearly related to and synchronized with the summer games) is a plausibly trademarkable term. And the circle logo (which the sub shop was actually displaying!) absolutely is. The difference here is mechanism: instead of a private entity inventing and registering a trademark, congress granted a trademark to a pre-existing mark to the USOC after the fact.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
I suppose it could be public domain. Would that be better? It seems like that opens an entirely different sort of abuse. Without trademark protection, how do you prevent people from offering "Olympic" tickets to non-official events, for example? No free lunch. Trademark is the tool society has decided to use for this. And the only difference between this and any other trademark dispute (like putting an "i" before a product name or calling a music distribution company "Apple Computer") is in the technicalities of how the mark was awarded.
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.
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.
[deleted]
> "The games, after all, are a shared party for all of humanity."
Are? Or ought to be?
Are? Or ought to be?
"In a follow-up letter June 18, the USOC said it "sympathizes with your position," so Voulgaridis was given until the end of 2013 to "come to a resolution.""
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.
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.
First off, this story is pun central! "... has not exactly advanced with the speed of Usain Bolt." Zing!
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.
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.
> First off, this story is pun central! "... has not exactly advanced with the speed of Usain Bolt." Zing!
How is that a pun?
How is that a pun?
What scotus thinks (1987 case):
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/522/
(Edit: Posted link for background cases are not similar..)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/522/
(Edit: Posted link for background cases are not similar..)
I don't think the two situations are analogous in any way. In the case you posted, the SFAA were looking to run a sporting event using the word 'Olympics'. This is clearly going to cause an element of confusion to the public in terms of who is organising the event.
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.
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.
As pointed out by emarcotte, the claim is not that anyone would think that the Olympic committee was making gyros but that the gyro makers are benefitting off the Olympic trademark without paying sufficient money like Coke or McDonalds.
Good point. I can see more clearly the need to protect large corporate sponsors from actual competitors (e.g. Burger King, Pepsi) where there is likely to be a diversion of profits, but in this case, I am fairly certain that there will be no diversion of profits.
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.
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.
But that's about the "Gay Olympic Games", where the confusion could be very real.
Nobody is going to think a diner has any relation to the official games.
Nobody is going to think a diner has any relation to the official games.
On the contrary, the International Olympic Committee will sell sponsorship to any corporation willing to shell out the most money to be "The Official {string} of the 2012 Olympics", no matter the category or how inappropriate it is.
This is of course stretched beyond reality. I can assure you won't see porn advertising on Olympics, regardless of how much they willing to pay.
> I can assure you won't see porn advertising on Olympics, regardless of how much they willing to pay.
How do you know? Be specific.
How do you know? Be specific.
ok, how about this: an imaginary buddy of mine running a porn website asked Olympics officials to put some porn ads. a couple doing it. on every runner's and jumper's t-shirt. he was willing to pay $10MM per runner, $20MM per jumper. guess what? bummer. they didn't agree :(
is this specific enough?
is this specific enough?
There seems to be a propensity on HN to question everything no matter how absurd it is on it's face.
"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????"
"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 seems to be a propensity on HN to question everything no matter how absurd it is on it's face.
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?
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?
Depends on what kind of 'porn' star she is.
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.
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.
> ok, how about this: an imaginary buddy of mine running a porn website asked Olympics officials to put some porn ads. a couple doing it. on every runner's and jumper's t-shirt. he was willing to pay $10MM per runner, $20MM per jumper. guess what? bummer. they didn't agree :(
> 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?
> 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?
This has happened to a number of local businesses here in Kitsap County. We live near the Olympic mountains in Western Washington. The USOC has gone after multiple local businesses in the past - http://web.kitsapsun.com/news/2001/march/03202namegame.html
On a related note, LOCOG, the UK equivalent of USOC, has been enforcing sponsorship rights very heavily. Just today the sale of chips to contractors working on the site was banned at the behest of McDonalds, unless, they were also sold with fish.
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.
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.
It's ironic that the government used "olympic games" as a code name for the development of Stuxnet.
Trying to come up with something funny to write about an idea for a website featuring pictures of tree limbs (Tree Limb Pics), but I got nothing.
This is why the Robolympics is no longer called that.
"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?