LOCOG's trade mark: a new Olympic record?

A LOCOG inspector checks whether the
Christmas tree decorations are genuine
LOCOG products ...

The question whether the right to control Olympic-related advertising trumps the right to sell things that look, sound and act like trade marks but aren't [see yesterday's post here] has caused the IPKat to do a little gentle scratching.  On 6 July 2005 the bid by London to host the 2012 Olympics was successful, the city scraping ahead of Paris by just four votes. Just eight days later the British Olympic Association filed a UK trade mark application in all 45 Classes for the word LOCOG (the acronym of the London Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games). The mark was registered in 12 May 2006, so rather more than five years has elapsed and it is disappointingly apparent to this Kat that the mark has not been used for all the goods and services within its ample specification [Not that it matters, the Trade Marks Act 1994, s.46 (1), provides that

"The registration of a trade mark may be revoked on any of the following grounds-
(a) that within the period of five years following the date of completion of the registration procedure it has not been put to genuine use in the United Kingdom, by the proprietor or with his consent, in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered, and there are no proper reasons for non-use;]  

Among other things, the word LOCOG has been registered for:

"Class 05: nutritional healthfood supplements; vitamin and mineral preparations; vitamins; minerals [Illegal performance-enhancing drugs? Says Merpel, there's a good market for them and the Olympic Games are traditionally associated with their use]. 

Class 10: artificial limbs [unless they're intended for Olympic use: see the sad case of Oscar Pistorius], 

Class 11: torches [ ... but the Olympic one has become the centre of a bit of a controversy of late]; 

Class 12: apparatus for locomotion by land; land vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by air; apparatus for locomotion by water [just wondering whether LOCOG might be a little descriptive for cogs used in locomotion ...]. 

Class 14:  sundials [For London in the summer? A little optimistic]; 

Class 16: typewriters [what are the odds against LOCOG for typewriters ever being the subject of an infringement action?]; 

Class 18: whips [Witty comments in poor taste made by Merpel, deleted by the IPKat];  

Class 25: babies napkins made of textile material [Oh for a US style 'intent-to-use' doctrine!];  

Class 27: Carpets, rugs, mats and matting, linoleum and other materials for covering existing floors [Are equivalent materials for covering non-existing floors 'similar goods' under the harmonisation Directive ...?];  

Class 28: decorations for Christmas trees [What about the Olympic ethos of embracing different cultures? Not everyone is comfortable with Christmas trees]; 

Class 34: Tobacco [Banned from the Olympics by China -- for spectators at any rate]; 

Class 35: Advertising, marketing and promotional services [no disclaimer here in respect of ambush marketing services];

Class 45: Security services for the protection of property and individuals [Merpel wonders if this includes intellectual property too ...]".

Readers are invited to inspect the list of goods and services and share their thoughts with the various Kats.

To boldly go .. LOCOG prepares to take on AdWords

The Locogosaurus engages with the
Googleraptor in a fight to the death for,
er, the right to tale other people's money

Don't despair -- if you own a beloved trade mark but can't stop those dreadful folk at Google selling it to enemy aliens as an AdWord, watch this space and see whether someone else can, this being the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG).  According to the Kats' information,

"The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) will crack down on brands that breach its advertising restrictions online, including bidding against trade mark terms on Google, in the run-up to and during next year’s Olympic Games.

LOCOG heavily restricts the use of specific trade mark terms such as “London 2012”, “Olympic” and “Paralympic” in any marketing activity by anyone other than its commercial partners. These include Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Visa. But competitor brands will be able to bid against these phrases on Google if the search engine maintains its current trade mark policy. For the past three years Google has allowed rival brands to buy trade mark terms.

LOCOG has yet to announce its formal online advertising policy ahead of the Games, but a spokesman told Marketing Week sister title New Media Age [which broke this story first] it was aware of Google’s trade mark rules. “We’re aware of the Google AdWords policy,” he said. “We take all attempts to ambush the London 2012 brand seriously and we deal with any incidents on a case-by-case basis.”

Since its decision to relax its rules, Google has come under fire from brands that say it’s breaking trade mark rules. However, last year the European Court of Justice (ECJ) said Google was doing no such thing [see the IPKat here, among other places]. Instead, in March this year the advocate general of the ECJ advised that it was advertisers themselves that should be found liable for trade mark infringement if they bought Google AdWords ads against rival trade marked brands [this sounds like the Interflora opinion, here].

Henry Ellis, Tamar associate director for social media, said brands must be careful if they associate themselves with the Games. “LOCOG and the Government are incredibly protective of the Olympic brand and would look to make an example of any advertiser that breaks their rules,” he said".

Thank you, veteran reader Lee Curtis, for the lead!

Source: "LOCOG to protect Olympic trademark search terms", by Will Cooper, Marketing Week, 11 May 2011

Olympic success: greasy pole meets greasy spoon

Stratford's distinctive "Cafe Olympic" may have to be
pulled down because it looks too much like the
nearby Olympic Stadium, say legal experts ...

Success in a tough and competitive event such as the Olympic Games has been likened to climbing a greasy pole.  However, next year's Olympics in London have a touch of the greasy spoon about them too.  Newham Council, the local council to London's Stratford Olympic Park, is currently looking into the activities of a small 'greasy spoon' eaterie, Café Olympic, over its use of the Olympic name. Under the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995, which was amended in 2006 after London won the right to host the Games in 2012, use of the Olympic name and symbols is strictly prohibited, along with certain protected words including Olympians, Olympiad, Games and 2012. Words such as 'London', 'gold', 'silver', 'bronze' and medals used in conjunction with Olympic or 2012 could also infringe the 2006 Act [But there's still some good news, says Merpel: other words and expressions long associated with the Olympics, such as 'wooden spoon', 'beaten into fourth place', 'dope','cheat', 'peaked too early', 'didn't live up to expectations', 'banned substances' and 'failed test' may still be used with impunity].

The owner of Café Olympic, Kamel Khichane, claimed Newham Council had only advised against use of the Olympic Rings [which just goes to show that, if you want reliable intellectual property advice, the place to go is probably not Newham Council]. Kirsten Gilbert (partner at Marks & Clerk Solicitors, which supplied this information) comments:

“Businesses such as Café Olympic and its neighbours the Olympic Café and Olympic Internet need to be aware of the potential illegality of their names. Newham Council, as the local council to the Olympic site, must do its best to educate local traders to ensure that they are aware of the trade mark protection surrounding the Games. ...

The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) has very wide ranging powers to ensure that no-one piggy-backs on the event [not so fast, says, the Kat: piggy-back races have yet to achieve Olympic recognition!] to violate sponsors’ rights. When assessing a potential infringement, LOCOG will be looking at whether a person or company is looking to create an impression of association so businesses will need to tread very carefully. 

“The case of Café Olympic serves as a warning to businesses hoping to benefit from the Games [unless, of course, they happen to be the sponsors].”

Greasy Spoon here
Wooden Spoon here
UK Competition Commission here and here
Cat Olympics here