@Grilled ,
@cabotower and several others seem to miss an important distinction of the "Olympics" term relative to ordinary trademarks.
They don't just have a trademark. They have their OWN LAW
Take a look for a moment at this US law, 25 USC 220506. That's a part of a set of laws which establish and define the authority and certain rights of the US Olympic Committee and its affiliated organizations.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/220506
(a) Exclusive Right of Corporation.—
Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the corporation has the exclusive right to use—
,,,
(4)
the words “Olympic”, “Olympiad”, “Citius Altius Fortius”, “Paralympic”, “Paralympiad”, “Pan-American”, “America Espirito Sport Fraternite”, or any combination of those words.
And
@cabotower is aware of, but does not grasp the significance of, the exceptions in section (d).
Olympic paint was a pre-existing mark. The other major exception are businesses in the general area of Olympia, Washington.
Continuing with section (d):
(d) Pre-Existing and Geographic Reference Rights.—
(1)
A person who actually used the emblem described in subsection (a)(3) of this section, or the words or any combination of the words described in subsection (a)(4) of this section, for any lawful purpose before September 21, 1950, is not prohibited by this section from continuing the lawful use for the same purpose and for the same goods or services.
(2)
A person who actually used, or whose assignor actually used, the words or any combination of the words described in subsection (a)(4) of this section, or a trademark, trade name, sign, symbol, or insignia described in subsection (c)(4) of this section, for any lawful purpose before September 21, 1950, is not prohibited by this section from continuing the lawful use for the same purpose and for the same goods or services.
Olympic” to identify a business or goods or services is permitted by this section where—
(A)
such use is not combined with any of the intellectual properties referenced in subsection (a) or (c) of this section;
(B)
it is evident from the circumstances that such use of the word “Olympic” refers to the naturally occurring mountains or geographical region of the same name that were named prior to February 6, 1998, and not to the corporation or any Olympic activity; and
(C)
such business, goods, or services are operated, sold, and marketed in the State of Washington west of the Cascade Mountain range and operations, sales, and marketing outside of this area are not substantial.
These conditions are the US national version of certain international understandings relating to the IOC and the various national committees.
Now, turning to that pending trademark application mentioned by
@Grilled , do remember that anyone with around $250 can file a trademark application on anything.
What do you think will happen to that "OFFICE OLYMPICS" application, considering that there is a US law which specifically grants exclusive rights in "OLYMPICS" to the USOC?
Well, we don't have to guess. The USPTO will do what the USPTO
always does when someone files such an application.
And, again, this is why I sometimes get a little depressed at the way people don't use the USPTO database correctly. The application cited by
@Grilled has already been refused.
Why? Well, you can read it yourself. The refusal is literally two clicks from looking at that TESS record, by using the TSDR tab and reading the refusal:
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn88555922&docId=OOA20190823175416#docIndex=1&page=1
Olympic Marks Statutorily Protected (No Bona Fide Intent to Lawfully Use Mark in Commerce) – ABSOLUTE BAR to Registration
Registration is refused because applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907. This refusal issues when “(1) a violation of federal law is indicated by the application [record] or other evidence, such as when a court or a federal agency responsible for overseeing activity in which the applicant is involved, and which activity is relevant to its application, has issued a finding of noncompliance under the relevant statute or regulation, or (2) when the applicant’s application-[related] activities involve a per se violation of a federal law.” In re PharmaCann LLC, 123 USPQ2d 1122, 1123 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016)); TMEP §907. To qualify for a federal registration, the use of a mark must be lawful. Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re PharmaCann LLC, 123 USPQ2d at 1123-24.
Importantly, Section 110 of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, 36 U.S.C. §220506, protects various designations associated with the Olympics. Under 36 U.S.C. §220506(a), the United States Olympic Committee has the exclusive right to use the name "United States Olympic Committee," its symbol and emblem, and the words “OLYMPIC,” “Olympiad,” “Citius Altius Fortius,” “Pan American,” “Paralympiad,” “America Espirito Sport Fraternite,” or any combination thereof. The United States Supreme Court has held that the grant by Congress to the United States Olympic Committee of the exclusive right to use the word "Olympic" does not violate the First Amendment. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522, 3 USPQ2d 1145 (1987) (concerning petitioner's use of “Gay Olympic Games”). Under 36 U.S.C. §220506(c), a person is subject to suit in a civil action by the Committee if such person, without the Committee's consent, uses for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competition, a designation noted above (listed in §220506(a)) or ‘any trademark, trade name, sign, symbol, or insignia falsely representing association with, or authorization by, the International Olympic Committee or ... [the United States Olympic Committee]" or any simulation of the words “Olympic,” “Olympiad,” or “Citius Altius Fortius” “tending to cause confusion, to cause mistake, to deceive, or to falsely suggest a connection with ... [the United States Olympic Committee] or any Olympic activity.” See U.S. Olympic Committee v. Toy Truck Lines Inc., 237 F.3d 1331, 57 USPQ2d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001); O-M Bread, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee, 65 F.3d 933, 36 USPQ2d 1041(Fed. Cir. 1995); U.S. Olympic Committee v. Intelicense Corp., S.A., 737 F. 2d 263, 222 USPQ 766 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 982 (1984); U.S. Olympic Committee v. Union Sport Apparel, 220 USPQ 526 (E.D. Va. 1983); U.S. Olympic Committee v. International Federation of Body Builders, 219 USPQ 353 (D.D.C. 1982); Stop the Olympic Prison v. U.S. Olympic Committee, 489 F. Supp. 1112, 207 USPQ 237 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).
In this case, the applicant's mark contains the term “OLYMPIC” (i.e., “OFFICE OLYMPICS”). The fact that the mark contains the additional word “OFFICE” does not affect or overcome the refusal.
-------------
Anyway, far be it from me to ruin anyone's fun. But, for those interested in what the underlying legal circumstances are, then there are two takeaways:
1. The US Olympic Committee, in addition to various trademarks, has its own law which grants exclusive rights to us the term "OLYMPIC" etc..
2. That law is an absolute bar to anyone else registering a mark with Olympic in it, except for marks prior to 1950 when the law was enacted.
In point of fact, one of the things the IOC was able to accomplish was to establish "OLYMPIC" and other designations on the permanent reserved word list in the new gTLDS. Their particular rights in that word are hard-wired into the ICANN gTLD process.
Every UDRP brought by the IOC or a national committee involving an "OLYMPIC" name has resulted in transfer:
NAF:
117893 olympiccommittee.com International Olympic Committee and The United States Olympic Committee v Domain For Sale, Inc. aka John Barry UDRP 08/08/2002
10/01/2002 127799 olympic.tv International Olympic Committee v Richard Freeman aka Return Pty Ltd. UDRP 10/17/2002
12/19/2002 128817 olympicbrand.com, olympicsbrand.com, olympic-brand.com, olympics-brand.com, olympianbrand.com International Olympic Committee & United States Olympic Committee v Russell Ritchey d/b/a EZ Fixin's d/b/a eBrandman UDRP 11/14/2002
02/01/2005 201977 bcolympic.com, bcolympic2010.com, bcolympics2010.com, bcolympics2010.net, Vancouverbcolympic.com, vancouverbcolympics.com, vancouverbcolympics.net, Vancouverbcolympics2010.com, Vancouverbcolympics2010.net International Olympic Committee & The United States Olympic Committee v Guy Boyden UDRP 10/16/2003
06/27/2006 1253280 ctvolympics.com International Olympic Committee and United States Olympic Committee and CTV Inc. v Texas International Property Associates - NA NA UDRP 03/26/2009
05/06/2009 1382972 olympicmuseum.org, olympicmuseum.net International Olympic Committee v Greek Historical Domains Society UDRP 04/18/2011
WIPO:
canadaolympicstore.com, canadaolympichockey.com
Transfer
WIPO D2016-0322 (Decision Date: April 17, 2016)
usaolympiconlinestore.com, olympiconlinestore.com
Transfer
WIPO D2000-0435 (Decision Date: July 20, 2000)
usolympicstore.com
Transfer
WIPO D2000-0189 (Decision Date: May 5, 2000)
Y'all have fun now.