 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
home > free speech The United States Olympic Committee and Trademark Infringement November 20, 2000 The Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C. 380, gives the International Olympic Committee the exclusive right to prevent any person from using the following items for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competition: The symbol of the IOC consisting of five interlocking ringsThe Utah Games Network uses the web address www.utahgames.org and includes on their website the phrase “more than gold,” to promote issues associated with the games in the Christian community. The website lists seminars and includes an electronic contribution listing. Users may also buy promotional materials such as videos, T-shirts, and pins. The T-shirts and pins both display the phrase “more than gold.” Because Utah Games Network sells items, the website can arguably fall under the Amateur Sports Act because they are inducing the sale of goods and services. Further, although they do not use the word “Olympic” expressly, the phrase “more than gold” and their website address www.utahgames.org could be considered a “simulation” of the Olympic trademark that tends to cause confusion or falsely suggests a connection with official Olympic activities. A letter from the Patent and Trademark Office of the Department of Commerce attached to the final committee report on the Amateur Sports Act stated that not only the words listed in the act are prohibited. Words that are a simulation or confusingly similar derivation from those listed are prohibited under the Act. However, at least two cases, United States Olympic Committee v. Olymp-Heerrenwaschefabriken, 22 USPQ 497 (Tr. Trial & App. Bd. 1984) and In Re Midwest Tennis and Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386 (Tr. Trial & App. Bd. 1993) found that words not expressly contained in the Act are not prohibited. The United States Supreme Court addressed the Amateur Sports Act in San Francisco Arts and Athletics v. United States Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987). The Court upheld an injunction preventing San Francisco Arts and Athletics (SFAA) from using the word “Olympic” to promote the “Gay Olympic Games.” The Court concluded that the USOC does not have to prove that unauthorized use of the word Olympic was confusing. Second, the word “Olympic has not become generic, removing it from trademark protection. Third, there was no violation of the First Amendment because the Amateur Sports Act applies to commercial speech or speech involved in a theatrical or athletic performance. The Court noted that the danger of the trademark restriction resulting in the infringement of political speech rights was too remote to warrant a violation of the First Amendment. Further, commercial speech is entitled to less protection under the First Amendment. Because the USOC has the right of exclusive use of the words listed in the Act, selling T-shirts, buttons, bumper stickers, and pins all containing the word “Olympic” could undercut the USOC’s efforts to use, and sell the right to use, the word in the future, since much of the words value comes from its limited use. Therefore, the restriction on this kind of commercial speech is justified. If the use of words or simulation of words in the Amateur Sports Act is purely non-commercial, the use may not infringe on IOC’s trademark, Stop the Olympic Prison v. United States Olympic Committee, 489 F. Supp. 1112 (S.D.N.Y 1980). In STOP, the organization made a poster stating “STOP the Olympic Prison” and used the five rings symbol superimposed on bars to represent a prison. The court held that Congress’ intent was to prevent confusion or deception in order to prevent false impressions of sponsorship. It was not to create a blanket prohibition of all uses, both commercial and non-commercial. Finding in favor of STOP, unless they used the Olympic symbol to advance one of its own products or services, the use would be permitted without violating any of USOC’s trademark rights. USOC has even argued that the purpose of the Act is to secure all commercial and promotional uses of “Olympic” to the USOC, except for those uses that are grandfathered. O-M Bread v. U.S. Olympic Committee, 94-1113 (Tr. Trial & App. Bd. 1995). |
|
ACLU OF UTAH UNION OR FOUNDATION? | USER AGREEMENT | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US © 2008 ACLU OF UTAH · 355 NORTH 300 WEST · SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 · T (801) 521-9862 · F (801) 532-2850 |