Going for gold: Protecting the Olympics’ IP

23rd Jul 2024

The countdown to the Paris Olympics is on – and we’re setting out the IP protection at the heart of it.

This will be the third time Paris have hosted and will mark the centenary of Paris 1924. The Olympics is truly an amazing event and attracts a highest viewership every time.

I’m not sure about anyone else, but my dream when I was little was to compete in the Olympics. Didn’t quite make it, but writing about it is surely the next best thing!

Putting the spectacularity to one side, from an Intellectual Property (IP) perspective, the games represent a great example on the importance of protecting your IP rights.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) have protected a whole myriad of items in order to strengthen the Olympic branding and to ensure it has protection against unauthorised use.

With its huge popularity and success, it is no surprise that the Olympics face many IP issues, including trade mark and copyright infringement, counterfeiting, cybersquatting and ambush marketing.

In order to shield their image and rights from reputational damage, the IOC have to remain vigilant to preserve their brand.

Putting a ring on it

The IOC have numerous symbols that are protected. These include, but are not limited to, the Olympic symbol, the flag, the flame, its motto (‘Faster, Higher, Stronger’) and various other terms such as “Olympian” and “Spirit in Motion”.

One of the most iconic symbols is the five Olympic rings. These were first used in 1913 and were drawn and coloured by hand by Pierre de Coubertin, one of the co-founders of the modern Games.

The colours of the rings represented the five inhabited continents and also incorporated the colours of all the national flags competing.

The rings were first used in the 1920 Olympic Games due to World War One interfering with the previous years’ games and are protected either under the 1981 Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol, or through special legislation.

In the United Kingdom (UK), they are protected under the Olympic Symbol, etc (Protection) Act 1995 as the UK is not a party to the Nairobi Treaty.

This was extended to include the Paralympics by the creation of a separate Paralympics association right by the London Olympic Games and Paralympics Games Act 2006.

The rings are protected by trade mark law in nearly every country to prevent their exploitation and in some countries, they have also been protected under copyright and design law, such as Australia.

What is interesting is that you cannot alter the rings’ appearance. Rather, they must be presented in their original colours or in any of the six official Olympic colours when necessary. A monochrome version is also acceptable.

Going for gold

While athletes compete for medals, the IOC committee are competing to stay on top of protecting their IP rights.

In the UK alone, the IOC has over 150 trade marks registered and there is always some forward-thinking when it comes to filing these marks.

The IOC tend to file marks that are related to the up-coming host city well in advance of the event. The mark “PARIS 2024” was registered in various countries in 2015 and 2016, and trade marks for the London games were filed in 2008, with “LONDON 2012” being filed in the UK in 2003! “LA 2028” was registered in the UK back in 2017.

It’s not just their trade marks either that they plan in advance, the domain london2012.com was registered in 2002 and paris2024.org was registered in 2005 to prevent cybersquatting.

Citius, Altius, Fortius (‘Faster, Higher, Stronger’) IP rights for the Olympics?

The IOC vigorously protect their IP rights and have a zero-tolerance policy for unauthorised use of any of its IP rights. Taking it a ‘hop, skip and a jump’ further, they also don’t allow non-official sponsors to associate themselves with the Games in a way that deceives the public into believing that they are commercially associated with the Games. This behaviour is often known as ambush marketing.

Additional Olympic Games protection is also given. For example, Schedule 3 in The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 states that certain combinations of words used together by advertisers could potentially infringe the London Olympics Association Right.

Advertisers were not allowed to use any of the following terms together: ‘Games’, ‘Two thousand and twelve', '2012' and 'Twenty twelve' nor could they be used in conjunction with any of the words; 'Gold', 'Silver', 'Bronze', 'London', 'Medals', 'Sponsors' or 'Summer'.

The IOC have certainly placed heavy restrictions on advertising, trading, and what would be deemed “unauthorised use”, thus giving the impression that the Olympic IP rights are viewed in a much higher and stronger position than those we see day to day.

But is this really that surprising? Some might view it as bad sportsmanship but it is the largest sporting celebration in the world so the IOC have to take an aggressive stance to make sure their assets are protected. In the Olympics world, it’s not called gym-nice-stics!

In 2012, the UK local Olympic committee ordered a butcher to take down an image that featured the Olympic rings made up of sausages. He obliged and created a different sign that featured five squares instead of rings. They weren’t happy with this either and although the Butcher saw the amusing side by stating “They’re called Olympic rings, not Olympic squares”, he was again forced to take down the sign.

In relation to trade marks, the IOC in 2022 were successful in cancelling a Spanish trade mark for “PARIS 2024” finding that the minimum use requirements were not met.

In 2013 when Paris was the favourite to host this year’s games, four individuals applied to register the trade mark “PARIS 2024” for sporting and cultural activities.

The IOC were tactical and brought an action for the revocation of the trade mark for lack of use over a continuous period of five years and also on the grounds of bad faith. A podium finish for IOC.

More recently, the Court of Appeals in the Philippines have upheld the decision of the IP Office to reject a petition filed by a local sporting goods store called Olympic Village United, regarding the use of the “Olympic Village” trade mark.

The store applied for the word mark “Olympic Village” in 1991 and for a composite mark including the words “Olympic Village” in 2010.

The IOC relied on the Nairobi Treaty to oppose their registrations and in April this year, the court held that the marks were confusingly similar and that the registrations were void.

Their reasoning being that the global legacy of the games dates back to 1924 so it was reasonable to conclude that Olympic Village United were fully aware of the prior existence, creation, and use of the Olympic mark. Another knock-out!

A perfect landing

It appears that the IOC have really hit a home run when it comes to safeguarding their IP rights, with individual countries also implementing further legislation to assist them.

Perhaps they do benefit from a privileged situation, but the IOC cannot allow for the Olympic brand to be devalued. Whilst it acts as a valuable source of revenue, the strict enforcement is necessary to ensure that the reputation and goodwill of the Games is not damaged.

Some may view this as not being in the Olympic spirit but the Games bring the world together in unity so global protection appears obligatory.

Author

Return to listing