Introduction

The Price of the Olympics

Staging the 2012 London Olympics is likely to cost at least £2 billion. Ordinary businesses could pay dearly too, if they tread too close to the Olympic word, symbols, or other “brand property” identified by the London Olympic Games authorities.

Such is the effect of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, which became law in the spring. Widely regarded as the most draconian Olympic sponsorship law to date, the Act seeks to protect the revenue anticipated by official sponsors of the London Games by creating broad new categories of infringement rights in the sponsors’ favour. Businesses will need to take more than the usual care with their use of branding at this time, as even acts that seem intuitively fair can infringe.

Under the new law, it is an infringement for businesses who are not official sponsors of the London Games to use, without consent, any controlled mark or mark similar to a controlled mark that could suggest a contractual, commercial, corporate, financial or other link between the user and the Games. The controlled marks include words with “Olympi—” prefixes, the interlocking rings symbol and the Olympic motto “Citius, Altius, Fortius.”

It is not enough to avoid the controlled marks, however. Businesses will also infringe if they say anything else that may suggest an association with the 2012 London Olympics. The courts are permitted to regard combinations of certain words or expressions, such as “games,” “2012,” “gold,” “silver,” “bronze,” “medals” and even “London,” as supporting a finding of such an association.

The rights are broad, but defences are scant. The use of registered trade marks is exempt, as is the honest use of one’s own name and address or indication of the kind, quality or other characteristic of goods or services. In the case of controlled marks, continuous use since 1995 may give a defence. Use since early 2006 may do so for other combinations of words.

Nevertheless, much of the normal and expected local advertising in the build-up to the Olympics is likely to infringe the law in one way or another. Using a business name or trade mark in conjunction with an invitation to “watch the Olympics here” could infringe. Playing on the popularity of the Games in a way which could never lead to confusion could also infringe (e.g. describing staff in an advertisement as “our Olympic team”).

It is difficult to see how ordinary businesses can join in the wave of enthusiasm for the Olympics when any reference to the Games, even to encourage viewership, is apt to break the law. It is to be hoped that enforcement will be fairer and more reasonable than the law itself appears to be.