Examples:

• • The USOPC has used the famous OLYMPIC mark in commerce since at least 1896, long before Prime Hydration’s existence.
  • The Olympic symbols and marks wouldn’t be exclusively associated with the USOPC without the protections of the Ted Stevens Act.
  • Royalties from the USOPC’s exclusive Coca-Cola sponsorship for beverages help fund U.S. Olympic training and competition.
  • Unauthorized uses of the Olympic Rings symbol by companies falsely suggest a connection to the Olympic Games.
  • Though not government funded, the USOPC is tasked with fielding and financing U.S. Olympic teams to represent the country.

Key Takeaways:

• • The USOPC has Congressionally-granted rights to Olympic marks to raise funds to send U.S. athletes to the Games.
  • Terms like “Olympic,” “Olympian,” & “Team USA,” along with symbols like the Olympic rings, are protected intellectual property.
  • Unauthorized commercial uses damage the USOPC’s sponsorship revenue model that finances U.S. Olympic participation.
  • Unlicensed brands using terms like “Olympic” can create false impressions of official ties to the Olympic Movement.
  • Congress intended to help fund U.S. Olympic efforts by giving the USOPC exclusive rights to control and license Olympic IP.

FAQs:

• • Why does the USOPC have exclusive Olympic trademark rights? To enable the USOPC to generate revenues to fund U.S. Olympic teams without government support.
  • Is it illegal for a brand to use “Olympic” without a USOPC license? Yes, the Ted Stevens Act prohibits unauthorized commercial uses of protected Olympic terms/symbols.
  • What types of marks are covered by the USOPC’s rights? Words like “Olympic” & “Olympian”, symbols like the Olympic rings, mottos like “Go for the Gold”, and more.
  • Does the USOPC own actual trademark registrations too? Yes, the USOPC owns trademark registrations for OLYMPIC, TEAM USA, and many other marks.
  • What happens if a company uses Olympic marks without permission? They could face a USOPC lawsuit for infringement, dilution, unfair competition, and other claims.

Examples:

• • Prime’s water bottle design boldly uses the word “OLYMPIC” multiple times, plus “Olympian,” “Team USA,” and “Going for Gold.”
  • An Instagram post from July 19, 2024 still showed Prime’s bottle with “Kevin Durant Olympic Prime Drink” messaging.
  • As of the complaint filing, Prime’s LinkedIn account continued to display the allegedly infringing Olympic bottle.
  • Store signage provided by Prime touted the “Kevin Durant Olympic Prime Drink” and his “Olympic Achievements” and “Olympic Legacy.”
  • Prime appears to have kept distributing the challenged products despite the USOPC’s July 10, 2024 cease and desist letter.

Key Takeaways:

• • Prime displayed multiple USOPC trademarks like OLYMPIC & TEAM USA on its water bottles, ads, and store signage.
  • The allegedly infringing marks appeared across Prime’s packaging, in-store promos, web/social media, and more.
  • Even after receiving the USOPC’s infringement notice, Prime allegedly kept distributing products with the Olympic marks.
  • Prime’s tie-ins to Kevin Durant and his Olympic achievements are a key focus of the lawsuit’s infringement claims.
  • From bottles to tweets to retailer ad copy, Prime widely used Olympic marks and terms without the USOPC’s permission.

FAQs:

• • Does Prime have any defense for using USOPC trademarks? Prime hasn’t stated any defenses yet, but claiming fair use, parody, or lack of confusion are possibilities.
  • How many different Olympic-related terms did Prime use? At least 4 – OLYMPIC, OLYMPIAN, TEAM USA, and GOING FOR GOLD, per the complaint.
  • Is it normal for an infringement case to have violations across so many media? The multi-platform use of the USOPC marks (packaging, web, social, in-store) is notable and may suggest willfulness.
  • Why does the continued use after the cease and desist matter? If proven, that conduct could support the USOPC’s claims of intentional, bad faith infringement.
  • Could Prime argue Kevin Durant authorized the Olympic references? Unlikely, as Durant wouldn’t have the right to approve uses of USOPC trademarks for commercial purposes.

Explaining the Violations:

• • Prime’s prominent use of “Olympic” on products and marketing appears to be a clear “use in commerce” to drive sales under the Ted Stevens Act.
  • The unauthorized use of marks identical to the USOPC’s registered OLYMPIC and TEAM USA marks supports a federal trademark infringement claim.
  • Displaying “Olympic” on Prime’s bottles and ads is likely to confuse consumers about the product’s connection to the USOPC or Olympic Games.
  • As a famous mark, OLYMPIC is supposed to be protected from diluting uses that could blur or tarnish its distinctiveness and positive associations.
  • Prime’s alleged Olympic IP violations, if proven, could also constitute deceptive trade practices and unfair competition under Colorado state law.

Key Takeaways:

• • Prime’s actions appear to check the boxes for infringement under both the Ted Stevens Act and Lanham Act.
  • Use of USOPC marks on products and ads without permission is likely to deceive consumers about a connection to the Olympics.
  • The OLYMPIC mark is so famous that unauthorized uses could dilute its distinctiveness and positive public associations.
  • Alleged violations of the Ted Stevens and Lanham Acts often give rise to related state law claims too, as seen here.
  • The USOPC’s complaint asserts multiple strong causes of action to attack Prime’s use of Olympic IP from different legal angles.

FAQs:

• • What does a plaintiff have to prove to win a Lanham Act infringement claim? They must show a likelihood of consumer confusion from the defendant’s use of the marks.
  • Is it common to see state law claims paired with Lanham Act claims? Yes, unfair competition and consumer protection claims are often asserted together in IP cases.
  • Why is false association singled out in the complaint? Falsely suggesting a connection between Prime Hydration and the Olympics is a key part of the USOPC’s case.
  • Does Prime have to actually cause confusion to be liable, or does potential confusion count too? Just a likelihood of confusion is enough – proof of actual confused customers isn’t required.
  • Why does it matter that OLYMPIC is a famous mark? Famous marks get extra protection under dilution law to preserve their enormous value and distinctiveness.

Potential Scope:

• • An injunction would force Prime to pull any products, ads, web pages, and store signage with the USOPC marks and start over with new branding.
  • Damages to the USOPC could be substantial given Prime’s major retail presence and the importance of the Coca-Cola sponsorship.
  • Disgorging Prime’s profits would require detailed sales data to calculate the revenue from the “Olympic” products.
  • If Prime’s infringement is found willful, punitive damages could significantly increase the total award.
  • A fee award would make Prime pay for the USOPC’s pricey IP litigators in addition to their own legal costs to defend the case.

Key Takeaways:

• • The USOPC is seeking a potent mix of equitable and monetary remedies to redress Prime’s alleged Olympic IP violations.
  • Forcing Prime to halt all use of the marks would protect the USOPC and its sponsors going forward, while damages could be retroactive.
  • Disgorging profits and paying damages, fees and costs could result in a massive financial hit to Prime if liability is established.
  • The risk of punitive damages ratchets up the pressure and highlights the hazards of “betting the brand” on unauthorized IP.
  • Injunctive relief is often most urgent for plaintiffs, but the wide range of remedies sought signals the USOPC’s seriousness here.

FAQs:

• • What’s the difference between actual damages and defendant’s profits? Damages are the plaintiff’s losses from infringement; profits are the defendant’s gains.
  • How are punitive damages determined in trademark cases? They’re generally based on factors like the defendant’s intent, misconduct, and ability to pay.
  • Does the “Olympic” mark have to be used identically to infringe? No – use of a confusingly similar variation can still violate the USOPC’s rights.
  • What if Prime already spent the “Olympic” product profits? Infringement liability doesn’t depend on still having ill-gotten gains on hand.
  • Could the USOPC settle for less than a total ban on Prime’s challenged marks? Possibly, but complete cessation of infringing uses is the usual goal.

Likely Counters:

• • Use of OLYMPIC as a product name and in ads goes beyond any factual reference to Durant’s sports history and becomes commercial use.
  • Given the ubiquity of official Olympic logos and branding on products, reasonable consumers would likely assume a Prime & USOPC connection.
  • Humorous intent doesn’t override trademark rights when the use still exploits the marks’ goodwill and appeal to drive commercial sales.
  • Durant has no power as an Olympian to authorize uses of the OLYMPIC marks for products – only the USOPC can license those rights.
  • The Ted Stevens Act and decades of precedent establish that unauthorized commercial uses of OLYMPIC marks aren’t shielded free speech.

Key Takeaways:

• • Prime will likely argue the “Olympic” references aren’t trademark uses, just factual or expressive applications allowed by law.
  • The prominence of the marks on Prime’s bottles and ads undercuts any “incidental” or non-commercial use defense.
  • Consumers’ strong association of Olympic symbols with official partners will make a “no confusion” defense challenging.
  • It’s doubtful Durant has the legal right to greenlight Prime’s uses of Olympic IP, which belong to the USOPC to license.
  • The USOPC has succeeded against First Amendment defenses before and has a strong position if Prime pursues that angle.

FAQs:

• • Does intent matter for a finding of infringement? Not for liability, as even unintentional trademark uses can infringe, but it factors into damages.
  • Can you reference the Olympics factually without permission? Usually yes, like stating an athlete is an Olympian, but not as a product brand.
  • What’s the key difference between fair use and infringement? Fair uses aren’t aimed at exploiting marks’ goodwill to spur sales; infringement hijacks that appeal.
  • Do companies ever win “parody” defenses to infringement claims? It’s an uphill battle when the parody is still a commercial use vs. pure speech or commentary.
  • Can athletes freely reference their own Olympics experience? In media interviews yes, but not usually to market products without USOPC permission.

Possible Case Trajectories:

• • A preliminary injunction could force Prime to make immediate changes and put pressure onthem to pursue a quick settlement.
  • If Prime fights on, the case could become a closely-watched battle impacting the entire sports drink and Olympic sponsorship landscape.
  • Extended litigation would mean extensive discovery into Prime’s marketing plans, partner contracts, and financial data surrounding the products.
  • A decisive USOPC win on summary judgment or after a jury trial would have ripple effects on broader sports marketing and IP practices.
  • A settlement with a USOPC-approved phase out plan for Prime’s Olympic-themed products is also possible, though less impactful industrywide.

Key Takeaways:

• • The USOPC’s requested remedies could bring major changes to Prime’s product line, marketing approach, and bottom line.
  • With so much at stake financially and legally for both sides, settlement incentives are strong but so are pressures to fight.
  • As a leading sports drink brand, Prime’s Olympic IP battle with the USOPC has the industry’s attention as a sign of what’s in and out of bounds.
  • This case’s outcome, whether by settlement, ruling, or trial verdict, is poised to impact sports and Olympic marketing more broadly.
  • The USOPC’s aggressive enforcement stance here seems aimed not just at stopping Prime, but deterring other would-be infringers too.

FAQs:

• • How long could a case like this take to resolve? From many months if settled to a few years or more if fought through trial and appeals.
  • Is it common for Olympic sponsors to sue over trademarks? Major sponsors like the USOPC regularly police and enforce their marks to protect their investments.
  • Do most Lanham Act cases settle before trial? Yes, as trials are long and costly, but some high-stakes trademark suits do go all the way.
  • How might this case affect future Olympic marketing campaigns? It could deter other brands from edgier Olympic tie-ins or embolden some to test the boundaries.
  • Would a loss for Prime impact its other products and endorsers? Potentially, as an injunction could implicate broader business lines and an adverse ruling may concern partners.

Questions:

• • 1. What law gives the USOPC exclusive rights to Olympic trademarks?
    • A) The Lanham Act
    • B) The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act
    • C) The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
    • D) The Federal Trademark Dilution Act
  • 2. Which of the following is NOT an Olympic mark the USOPC accused Prime of infringing?
    • A) OLYMPIC
    • B) OLYMPIAN
    • C) OLYMPIC ATHLETE
    • D) GOING FOR GOLD
  • 3. Under the Lanham Act, what must the USOPC show to prevail on its infringement claims?
    • A) Prime’s marks are identical to USOPC’s registered marks
    • B) Prime’s use is likely to cause consumer confusion
    • C) Prime profited from the alleged infringement
    • D) Prime’s infringement was willful
  • 4. Why does the USOPC allege Prime’s actions constitute unfair competition?
    • A) Prime’s prices undercut the USOPC’s official sponsor products
    • B) Prime used false or misleading advertising about its drinks
    • C) Prime’s product is unsafe for athlete consumption
    • D) Prime’s marketing falsely suggests association with the USOPC/Olympics
  • 5. What key USOPC sponsor relationship does the complaint say Prime’s acts threaten?
    • A) Nike
    • B) Visa
    • C) Coca-Cola
    • D) Toyota

Answers:

• • 1. B) The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act grants the USOPC statutory rights to Olympic trademarks.
  • 2. C) “Olympic Athlete” was not one of the marks the USOPC claimed Prime infringed in this case.
  • 3. B) The key issue in Lanham Act infringement cases is likelihood of consumer confusion, not exact similarity, profit, or intent.
  • 4. D) Prime’s false suggestions of Olympic ties or approval are the core of the USOPC’s unfair competition claim.
  • 5. C) The USOPC alleges Prime’s acts threaten its valuable, exclusive beverage sponsorship with Coca-Cola.

Disclaimer

The information in this article discussing the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee’s lawsuit against Prime Hydration, LLC is provided for general educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended as and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for specific guidance on any actual legal matters.

This article contains third-party links. By clicking on these links, you will be leaving our website and entering a site not operated by us. We encourage you to review that site’s terms of use and privacy policy as they may differ from our own. We assume no responsibility for nor endorse the content, products, services, or viewpoints expressed in these third-party sites.