Non-Olympic Partners Cannot Promote Team USA athletes for Rio 2016

One of the most perplex things I have ever came across. Next they should tell athletes who are sponsored that they aren't allowed to get performance bonuses for making the olympics. Remember when they were just consider amateurs anyways???

Shocked Symmonds hasnt said anything on this yet? Or has he?

xcrunner6 wrote:

One of the most perplex things I have ever came across. Next they should tell athletes who are sponsored that they aren't allowed to get performance bonuses for making the olympics. Remember when they were just consider amateurs anyways???

Shocked Symmonds hasnt said anything on this yet? Or has he?

Nooo.. They would want a cut of the performance bonus because it's their event. Something reasonable, like 80%.

This is not news. And, BTW, completely legal.

Wait until the Rio Games are over and they stick the taxpayers with a billion dollar bill. Meanwhile, the vast majority of athletes attending the games will get there by maxing credit cards.

Call their bluff.

Letsrun.com should do in depth THANKS. to each and every outside donor for all of our Olympians.

Afterall, these are the folks that allowed the athletes to train over the last 4 years.

How could they punish the athletes if they had no part in the stories?

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:This is not news. And, BTW, completely legal.

I actually question whether this is constitutional. Prohibiting the use of the USOC's trademarks in advertising is one thing. Prohibiting a business from simply speaking about the Olympics in order to increase the value of Olympic sponsorship is another. In recent years, the Supreme Court has broadly applied the 1st amendment to corporations and commercial speech.

The way the 1st amendment applies is a bit convoluted because it would involve punishing an athlete for the sponsor's exercise of its 1st amendment rights, and the punishment would be disqualification of an athlete by an international organization (the IOC) in a foreign location (Rio), so that would have to be addressed.

However, I can see a plausible case for someone like Oiselle to bring a declaratory judgment case against the USOC asking for a declaration that the USOC cannot constitutionally prohibit Oiselle from congratulating athletes, using a particular hashtag, and simply exercising its right to speak about a public event of public interest.

I see overreach wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:This is not news. And, BTW, completely legal.

I actually question whether this is constitutional. Prohibiting the use of the USOC's trademarks in advertising is one thing. Prohibiting a business from simply speaking about the Olympics in order to increase the value of Olympic sponsorship is another. In recent years, the Supreme Court has broadly applied the 1st amendment to corporations and commercial speech.

I am not a lawyer, but you need to check the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act. The USOC/IOC sports were granted many exclusions, basically the monopoly status like the NFL and MLB.

The IOC will not lose this skirmish. No way. MLB, NFL, NCAA all rely on their protected status to ensure their success.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:I am not a lawyer, but you need to check the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act. The USOC/IOC sports were granted many exclusions, basically the monopoly status like the NFL and MLB.

The IOC will not lose this skirmish. No way. MLB, NFL, NCAA all rely on their protected status to ensure their success.

I am just spitballing the constitutional ideas, and I may well be wrong about them. But it doesn't matter what the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act says if the act violates the Constitution. Congress cannot give the USOC the right to violate the Constitution.

I see overreach wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:I am not a lawyer, but you need to check the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act. The USOC/IOC sports were granted many exclusions, basically the monopoly status like the NFL and MLB.

The IOC will not lose this skirmish. No way. MLB, NFL, NCAA all rely on their protected status to ensure their success.

I am just spitballing the constitutional ideas, and I may well be wrong about them. But it doesn't matter what the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act says if the act violates the Constitution. Congress cannot give the USOC the right to violate the Constitution.

Not a lawyer...

I think SCOTUS would uphold the USOC's trademark on this one. The NFL protects "Super Bowl". I think it can be shown that protecting the trademarks is fair and not a violation of the first amendment.

I think the USOC can make the argument that if anyone is allowed to use the names or marks it devalues the mark.

Not a great situation and some sort of balance has to be reach so the athletes can profit from their endeavors.

I see overreach wrote: But it doesn't matter what the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act says if the act violates the Constitution. Congress cannot give the USOC the right to violate the Constitution.

Do you realize the NCAA, MLB, NFL, WIPO, and USOC will throw everything they have at any attempt to weaken their control of intellectual property?

Who will fund the years-long legal effort? Not me.

luv2run wrote:

some sort of balance has to be reach so the athletes can profit from their endeavors.

No. That's not how the system works. The IOC sports federations profit.

Athletes are nothing more than interchangeable actors using some PEDs for some really sensational viewing.

You must be completely unaware of the regulatory environment for intellectual property. It is oppressive. The IOC's demands are just one simple example.

xcrunner6 wrote:

One of the most perplex things I have ever came across. Next they should tell athletes who are sponsored that they aren't allowed to get performance bonuses for making the olympics. Remember when they were just consider amateurs anyways???

Shocked Symmonds hasnt said anything on this yet? Or has he?

Symmonds' on Twitter about it:

luv2run wrote:Not a lawyer...

I think SCOTUS would uphold the USOC's trademark on this one. The NFL protects "Super Bowl". I think it can be shown that protecting the trademarks is fair and not a violation of the first amendment.

I think the USOC can make the argument that if anyone is allowed to use the names or marks it devalues the mark.

Not a great situation and some sort of balance has to be reach so the athletes can profit from their endeavors.

I agree that the USOC can prohibit businesses from using its trademarks. As I understand it, however, the USOC's claims go well beyond that. What USOC is claiming is that if, for example, Desi Linden won a medal at the Olympics and Brooks tweeted "Congratulations Desi!" then Linden could be disqualified. If Brooks retweeted an NBC tweet saying that Linden had won a medal, the USOC says that Linden could be disqualified. That's going well beyond simply enforcing trademarks.

Are you going to pay for the lawyers to fight it out? This is IP law, so the IOC can just re-litigate some variation of their last complaint with the intent of bankrupting the infringer.

luv2run wrote:

I see overreach wrote:

I am just spitballing the constitutional ideas, and I may well be wrong about them. But it doesn't matter what the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act says if the act violates the Constitution. Congress cannot give the USOC the right to violate the Constitution.

Not a lawyer...

I think SCOTUS would uphold the USOC's trademark on this one. The NFL protects "Super Bowl". I think it can be shown that protecting the trademarks is fair and not a violation of the first amendment.

I think the USOC can make the argument that if anyone is allowed to use the names or marks it devalues the mark.

Not a great situation and some sort of balance has to be reach so the athletes can profit from their endeavors.

Isn't this similar to the crap that Yellowstone park just went through with Delaware North Companies? Delaware North actually contests that it owns the name "Yellowstone Park" at this point. They have not pushed for compensation of it's use as of yet, but still claim to own the name.

I see overreach wrote:

[quote]luv2run wrote:Not a lawyer...

/quote]

I agree that the USOC can prohibit businesses from using its trademarks. As I understand it, however, the USOC's claims go well beyond that. What USOC is claiming is that if, for example, Desi Linden won a medal at the Olympics and Brooks tweeted "Congratulations Desi!" then Linden could be disqualified. If Brooks retweeted an NBC tweet saying that Linden had won a medal, the USOC says that Linden could be disqualified. That's going well beyond simply enforcing trademarks.

This is the way I read it too. I feel that companies that support these athletes should be able to some public way be able to congratulate them, or wish them good luck? '

Here's the sharp end of the IOC protecting their IP rights. User was banned from Twitter for posting a GIF.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-gif-aly-raismans-floor-routine-got-me-permanently-jim-weber

Here's the company hired for the job.

http://www.friendmts.com/

Boss of Friend MTS former NBC exec. Surprised?

When does a uniform begin and end? Could Jared Ward wear a Saucony headband? Is that uniform, or accessory? Could he wear a blank headband with no logo?

Doesn't Rule 40 extend to NCAA. Can an Oregon runner wear Adidas shoes? If NCAA officials say athletes must wear same uniform, then that does NOT extend to shoes, because many Ducks do not wear the same shoe, You have to look at the definition of uniform = SAME..

There was a comprehensive IOCguide for each sport in the Olympics as to what items could have what logos...it was very thorough.

It's f^u^c(#k&I@n NBC Hollywood's fault. They want the 2024 Olympics too those lousy basta,rds.

I.M. Nike wrote:

There was a comprehensive IOCguide for each sport in the Olympics as to what items could have what logos...it was very thorough.

Correct. For example, for track, they are specifically allowed to use their own spikes, watches, and sunglasses.