
Businesses can't use the word "olympic" because of congress - larrys
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120711_Reading_Terminal_shop_gets_Olympic-sized_reprimand.html
======
jack-r-abbit
_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._

 _"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?

------
chimi
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.

~~~
larrys
"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...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title36/html/USCODE-2010-title36-subtitleII-
partB-chap2205-subchapI-sec220506.htm)

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.

------
ajross
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.

~~~
jessriedel
> 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.

~~~
ajross
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.

------
larrys
"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.

------
basseq
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.

~~~
tzs
> First off, this story is pun central! "... has not exactly advanced with the
> speed of Usain Bolt." Zing!

How is that a pun?

------
larrys
What scotus thinks (1987 case):

<http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/522/>

(Edit: Posted link for background cases are not similar..)

~~~
grabeh
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.

~~~
jessriedel
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.

~~~
grabeh
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.

------
bcl
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>

~~~
caycep
they ought to try and sue the mountain

------
grabeh
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...](http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100170114/london-2012-olympics-
mcdonalds-is-watching-you-and-your-chips/)

They have also been taking action against small businesses in a similar manner
for using the logo without permission.

------
ojbyrne
It's ironic that the government used "olympic games" as a code name for the
development of Stuxnet.

------
sageikosa
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.

------
VonGuard
This is why the Robolympics is no longer called that.

