The Olympic Games and trademark competition
The entire world is preparing for the sporting spectacle that will ensue, so we will take the time briefly to analyse the impact of the Games from a Romanian IP perspective.
The success of the Olympic Games has made them a very attractive sponsorship opportunity. That success has also made them a target for infringers and ambush marketers alike.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) fought back by requesting all host countries to enter into an agreement regarding, among other things, the protection of IP rights and of the rights of the official sponsors. As far as the current Games are concerned, the obligations assumed by the UK government have been materialised in the London Olympic and Paralympic Games Act of 2006, which is widely considered the most comprehensive legislation of its kind.
However, infringements and ambush marketing issues are not confined to the territory of the host country, nor are they confined to the specific time period when the Games take place. In all these jurisdictions apart from the host country, the IOC will have to deal with this issue without the benefit of special legislation.
In the four years since the last Games, the IOC has faced various IP problems in Romania related to infringement and to ambush marketing.
Trademark infringements
Various trademark applications containing the world ‘Olympic’ in different forms have been filed, such as ‘Olympic Hotel’, ‘Olympic Restaurant’ and ‘Olympic Center’, by Romanian applicants, and ‘Olympic Online’ and ‘Olympic Stem Xcells’ by foreign ones.
In some cases the IOC was forced to fight such applications in multiple jurisdictions with various outcomes, especially as they were filed for a wide range of goods and services, some of them with no apparent connection to the main activities of the IOC, but clearly bound to dilute the distinctive character of its well-known Olympic trademarks.
As a result, the IOC consistently filed oppositions to the registration of all trademark applications similar to Olympic trademarks. The oppositions were based on the conflict with IOC’s earlier rights, as well as on the wellknown character of the Olympic trademarks.
“VARIOUS TRADEMARK APPLICATIONS CONTAINING THE WORLD ‘OLYMPIC’ IN DIFFERENT FORMS HAVE BEEN FILED, SUCH AS ‘OLYMPIC HOTEL’, ‘OLYMPIC RESTAURANT’ AND ‘OLYMPIC CENTER’, BY ROMANIAN APPLICANTS.”
In one of the first oppositions, back in 2008, the Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM) recognised the well-known character of the Olympics trademarks, and then confirmed it in later decisions, all in favour of the IOC.
Ambush marketing
One case stands out in the last four years. The soft drinks producer Prigat, owned by Pepsico, during the last Olympic Games ran an advertising campaign named ‘Olimpiada Oamenilor Obisnuiti’ (the Regular People Olympics). Prigat, along with the advertising company 23 Communications Ideas, also sought the registration of the name of the campaign as a trademark.
The IOC filed an opposition before OSIM against the trademark applications and also filed an infringement action and sought an injunction before the courts of law. The opposition was upheld by OSIM while the injunction was rejected by the courts of law.
The infringement action is still pending with the parties currently debating procedural issues before the Supreme Court. Should these be resolved in favour of the plaintiffs IOC and the National Olympic Committee (NOC), the case will be sent to the court of first instance for a decision on the merits. Therefore it might take another four years before we will have a final decision in this case.
Although the track record before OSIM makes Romania one of the jurisdictions where the IOC has been most successful in enforcing its trademark rights so far, the issue appears not to be as clear before the courts.
Even if the IOC prevails in the court case, it might be too late as, with the failure of the injunction, they were not able to stop the campaign running its course during the 2008 Games. Victories before OSIM are clearly not sufficient—actually stopping the infringement proves to be a far more complicated venture.
