In preparation for the Olympic Games in London in 2012, the UK has passed legislation that, amongst many other things, aims to protect various words, terms, logos that are associated either with the Olympic Movement in general, or with the 2012 Olympic Games in particular. The same also applies to the Paralympic Movement and the Paralympic Games which run subsequently to the Olympic games in 2012.

The two main pieces of legislation are the Olympic Symbol etc (Protection) Act 1995 ( referred to here as the "1995 Act") and the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 (referred to here as "2006 Act").

The 1995 Act
This act had the effect of protecting the words and symbols:

            The Olympic motto "Citius, Altius, Fortius" (or "Faster, Higher, Stronger")
            The Olympic Symbol of five interlocking rings
            The words: Olympiad, Olympiads, Olympian, Olympians, Olympic and Olympics.

The  1995 act created a right known as "the Olympics association right" which is infringed by unauthorised usage of any of the protected words or symbols.

The 2006 Act
This act has the effect of expanding the scope of protection given to the Olympic and Paralympic Games to prevent an unauthorised person (including a company) from doing anything that is "likely to create in the public mind an association" between the London Olympics and that person, or the goods or services provided by that person.

Such an "association" would infringe a new right, known as the "London Olympic Association Right (LOAR). The LOAR goes to the benefit of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games Limited (LOCOG), a company established to implement and administer the London 2012 Olympic Games.

As well as amending the 1995 Act to extend protection to words and symbols associated with the Paralympic Games, the 2006 Act expands the overall list of protected words and expressions to cover two new groups of words:

1. a) Games
   b) two thousand and twelve
   c) 2012, and
   d) twenty twelve   
2. a) gold
   b) silver
   c) bronze
   d) London
   e) medals
   f) sponsor, and
   g) summer.

In assessing whether there is a likelihood of an "association" and an infringement of the LOAR, the courts will look at any combination of two (or more) words from group 1), or a combination of one word (or more) from group 1) with one word (or more) from group 2. However, this is not an exhaustive list of what is not acceptable, and fundamentally LOCOG has very wide ranging powers in order to prevent unauthorised "association". 

The Trade Marks Act 1994
In addition to the specific protection given by the 1995 and 2006 Acts, an amendment to  the Trade Marks Act 1994  (the 1994 Act) also gives certain specific protection to "Olympic" trade marks. The 1994 Act specifically states that trade marks will be refused which consist of any of the protected words or symbols set out in the 1995 Act (or by virtue of further amendment, consist of any of the Paralympic protected words and symbols set out in the 2006 Act).

The LOCOG has also registered a number of trade marks under the 1994 Act, which extends their protection further. These marks include the various logos used in association with the London Olympic Games, and some of the other important trade marks, including stylised versions of the numerals 2012 in various formats.

Reasons for all of this protection.
The organising committees for each Olympic Games depend heavily upon corporate sponsorship and merchandising (or licensing) in order to fund the creation of infrastructure for the games, and to fund the games themselves. For example, the International Olympic Committee estimates that between 2001 and 2004, sponsorship and licensing activities raised around $1545.5 million towards the costs of the games. The laws are intended to protect that income source. 

One of the common historical problems has been something called "ambush marketing". Ambush marketing usually takes the form of a sustained marketing drive by companies that were not official sponsors, which monopolise the geographical area around the Olympic Games venues, or is a marketing drive based on images or suggestions that avoid drawing a direct link with the Olympic Games, but do enough to call them to mind. The wide ranging powers in the 2006 Act are clearly intended to deal with this problem, and indeed it also specifically restricts advertising and trading activities within certain geographical distances of the Olympic Games venues.

What can't you do?
In essence you have to avoid creating an association with the London Olympic Games, which means avoiding any of the protected words and symbols, as well as any images that create a link (or association) with the games. 

The LOCOG gives some guidance on their website here.

 In essence the LOCOG can pursue any one they feel is creating a link with the Olympic or Paralympic Games. The effect of the 2006 Act (in particular) may mean that, for example, it will not be permitted to use marketing material featuring field and track athletes, especially if there is some other element that suggests a link with the Olympics, perhaps a representation of medals, or a torch.

You should also not use or register a trade mark that features any of protected words or symbols.

It may be that a test case will go to Court which will help to define (and possibly limit) the rights of LOCOG, but until that happens the general advice is that you need to be extremely careful.

What can you do?
There are a number of specific defences or exceptions to infringement of the LOAR, but these will only be applicable in a limited number of cases. The defences/exceptions are:

• a) Use in a context which is not likely to suggest an association with the Olympic games or Olympic movement,
• b) Making a statement honestly, provided it is not used for promotional purposes in an irrelevant context,
• c) Editorial or journalistic use, or incidental use in literary or artistic works,
• d) Use on goods where those goods have entered the EU market with the consent of the Proprietor,
• e) Use has been made continuously since prior to the introduction of the 1995 Act,
• f) Use of a design rights or other rights existing prior to the introduction of the 1995 Act,
• g) Use of a registered design or registered trade mark,
• h) Use for judicial or parliamentary proceedings.

A publication by LOCOG (click here for details) gives an interesting interpretation of how LOCOG feels these defences may or may not apply, and gives some examples. However this is not binding and LOCOG reserves the right to take action if circumstances dictate. If the activity complained results in an association with the Olympic Games then it must be assumed that LOCOG will do their best to prove that the defences should not apply.

This information is simplified and must not be taken as a definitive statement of the law or practice.