Posts Tagged: "Olympics"

Updates to Olympic Charter Rule 40: Impact of Name, Image, Likeness Changes for Tokyo Games

“Name, Image, Likeness” rights, the term commonly used to designate rights covered under right of publicity law, has been a popular and trending term thus far in 2021, and a hotly debated topic in the world of sports. With the Supreme Court’s ruling in NCAA v. Alston, multiple states enacting Name, Image, Likeness statutes, and the recent decision by the NCAA to suspend all Name, Image, Likeness rules for incoming and current athletes, this year is promising to reshape the advertising and sponsorship landscape for current U.S. college athletes and recruits. However, the controversies surrounding this subsection of intellectual property (IP) Law are not new to sports, and they are not unique to college athletes. For years, Olympic athletes have fought against Name, Image, Likeness restrictions set forth in the Olympic Charter and imposed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

PUMA TOKYO 2021: Legitimate Mark or False Association with the Olympic Games?

What comes to mind when you read these city/year combinations: London 2012. Sochi 2014. Sydney 2000. Did you immediately think of the Olympics? The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and its Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) believe you did. In 1999, the Board held that the primary significance of “Sydney 2000” is a reference to the Olympics held in Sydney, Australia in 2000 and affirmed the USPTO’s refusal to register a Sydney 2000 mark because the mark falsely suggested a connection with the Olympics. In re Urbano, 51 U.S.P.Q.2d 1776 (T.T.A.B. 1999). Thus, the mark violated Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), and was not registrable. More than two decades later, the same question is before a federal district court in Colorado, home to the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC). The sports apparel and equipment company PUMA SE filed applications in the USPTO to register trademarks consisting of its PUMA mark combined with cities and years for which Olympic Games will be held: PUMA TOKYO 2021, PUMA BEIJING 2022 and PUMA PARIS 2024, for bags, clothing and sports equipment. When the USPTO refused registration of each application based on likelihood of confusion and false connection with the USOPC’s TOKYO 2020, BEIJING 2022 and PARIS 2024 marks, PUMA initiated cancellation proceedings against the USOPC’s trademarks.

How Do Musical Artists Get Paid When Skaters Use Their Songs at the Olympics?

The somewhat jarring Olympics tradition of juxtaposing athleticism and grace with instrumental versions of popular songs you might hear in the grocery store came to an end in Pyeongchang. After the Sochi games in 2014, the International Skating Union (ISU) decided to shake things up (or shake it off, Taylor Swift?) and began allowing skating to music with lyrics. This is not at all surprising given the demographics of the skaters, who are much more likely to enjoy “Single Ladies” than “Clair de Lune.” Pleasing Generation Z and millennial skaters, however, was not the main goal of the rule change; rather, the ISU wanted to appeal to younger audiences who tune in to watch the Olympics and other major figure skating events.

Olympics and Intellectual Property: What Brands Need to Know

“The purpose of Rule 40 is to prevent over-commercialization of the games and to protect the exclusivity of the official sponsors, who spend many millions of dollars to market during the Olympics,” she explained. “So, there was a blackout period (Feb 1- Feb 28 this year) where brands who sponsor athletes, but are not official Olympic sponsors cannot run ads featuring their athletes or even wish them good luck/congrats on social media.”

Howard Head’s innovative sporting goods revolutionize skiing and tennis for amateurs and pros alike

Among the 2017 inductees into the National Inventors Hall of Fame is Howard Head, the inventor of both the laminate ski as well as the oversized tennis racket. Sunday, September 10th, marked the 42nd anniversary of the filing date for one of two patents for which Head has been inducted, affording us an opportunity to look back at the innovative contributions to sports from an engineer who just couldn’t stand his own poor athleticism.

#Infringement? Olympic Committee Attempts to Knock Out Competitors

The Olympic Games will draw the attention of the world under a banner of honest competition and camaraderie. However, many have accused the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) of conduct not in keeping with the open spirit of the Olympic Games. In the run-up to the Olympics, companies have reported receiving cease and desist letters from the USOC. These letters claim that use of the USOC’s trademarks in social media posts infringe on the USOC’s federal rights.

2016 Rio Olympics will see plenty of U.S. innovations from Nike, Comcast and Cisco

One way in which innovation has already touched the games before it has even begun is in the figure of the famed Olympic torch, which travels the world before lighting the fire that announces the start of every Games. Rio’s version, the Tocha Olímpica, has a few unique technological aspects setting it apart from previous torches. Designed by Chelles & Hayashi, a São Paulo firm, the torch has movable segments which expand vertically whenever the flame is passed from one torchbearer to the next. When the segments expand, they unveil resin surfaces underneath which show the colors of the Brazilian national flag; other colors represent the land and water surrounding Rio. The torch includes built-in cameras to capture scenes of its journey across the world from Athens to Rio. In a nod to the Paralympics, the torch includes Braille writing for blind torchbearers and its center of gravity is located in the lower-third of the torch, increasing the ease of carrying for wheelchair-bound bearers.

2016 Summer Olympics in Rio will feature innovations for athletes, spectators alike

In major American sports, players, spectators and referees alike are all interested in making sure that fouls are called properly and that athletes are always abiding by the rules. In recent years, various technologies have been applied to the sports world in order to accomplish these goals. In the National Football League, for example, video replay can be used to challenge a questionable call on the field. Many of these systems currently utilize touchscreen monitors providing high-definition pictures and state-of-the-art communications systems to help officials make the best judgment possible. In a similar way, many of the athletic events at this year’s Olympics will be sporting new technologies designed to keep the games fair for all competitors. In the days leading up to the opening ceremonies for this year’s Olympics, we wanted to profile some of the innovations that will be seen in Rio de Janeiro which will help players, spectators and refereeing officials alike as we head into the games.

Lord of the Rings: The Olympic Committee’s Trademark Protection

Every year countless stories arise of individuals, churches, and small businesses, receiving cease and desist letters from the NFL or NCAA for unauthorized use and reference to their respective SUPER BOWL, MARCH MADNESS, and other trademarks. The success of these enforcement letters comes from a mixture of the organizations’ trademark rights under the Lanham Act and the fear that these financially well-endowed organizations could sue. The International Olympic Committee (“IOC”), and its national governing bodies, like the USOC (collectively the “Olympic Committee”), also aggressively enforce their rights in their Olympic trademarks, slogans, and symbols (the “Olympic properties”). The Olympic Committee not only employs the traditional methods of other sport organizations, but has several additional weapons that provide a true monopoly on the Olympic properties; thus, significantly increase its success.

Olympic Gymnastics Parody and the 2 Live Crew

Given the fact that the IOC is notoriously litigious, are the WSJ and the Guardian in trouble for their little vignettes? Nah -thanks to the 2 Live Crew. Parody is a defense that falls under the broader category of Fair Use. The 2 Live Crew case (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)) is the Fair Use decision that all other interpretations flow from. The Court had to start with determining if 2 Live Crew’s use was satire or parody. Satire, as defined by the Campbell court and the Oxford Dictionary in 1994, is a work “in which prevalent follies or vices are assailed with ridicule”, which is a very weird way of saying “your work is being made fun of for being stupid”. Parody, however, is more closely related to a spoof or a humorous exaggeration. Courts still struggle with both concepts in the realm of copyright infringement and the fair use defense. But we did learn from Campbell is that commercial use does not take a use out of the realm of parody.