A new warning from the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) puts marketers and PR pros on guard. Some commentators call the USOC’s aggressive protection of its trademarks outlandishly extreme.
A new USOC letter warns non-sponsor companies against including the Olympics’ intellectual property in their social media posts, reports ESPN. That restriction includes the use of USOC’s trademarks such as #Rio2016 and #TeamUSA. The organization guards a long list of trademarked words and terms, such as “Olympic,” “Olympian,” “Go for the Gold,” and seemingly everything that refers to the games.
The USOC asserts that — other than news media outlets and its approved partners and sponsors — companies cannot share or repost anything from the official Olympic account and cannot use any pictures taken at the Olympics.
No Olympics in Social Media Posts
The USOC warns businesses: “Do not create social media posts that are Olympic themed, that feature Olympic trademarks, that contain Games imagery or congratulate Olympic performance unless you are an official sponsor as specified in the Social Media Section.”
The Rio 2016 Organising Committee’s Brand Protection Guidelines for PR, marketing and advertising people says it seeks to “preserve the emotional and commercial value” of official sponsors of the regular as well as Paralympics. It maintains “a broad monitoring and prevention programme against ambush marketing and the sale of non-official products and tickets.”
Its 54-page document explains what you cannot do and provides examples. Avoid including images of the Olympic torch and of course those rings in your PR and marketing content. “You can’t promote that your brand’s spokesperson is an Olympic athlete. You can’t even do a simple sweeps to give away tickets to the Olympics and say, ‘Enter for a chance to win a trip to Rio in 2016!’” writes Jennifer Hibbs, a vice president marketing agency Marden-Kane.
USOC Takes Action against Apparel Company
The USOC sent Oiselle, an athletic apparel company, a notice demanding that it remove photos of athlete Kate Grace after she won the 800 meters Olympic trials, notes ESPN. Although Oiselle sponsors 15 Olympians, it is not an official sponsor.
“The whole thing is ridiculous,” said Sally Bergesen, CEO of Oiselle, told ESPN. The rules hurt athletes if companies that sponsor them can’t gain a marketing benefit. “It costs $300,000 to send an Olympian to the Games, and for our athletes, the USOC has reimbursed them about 1 percent of that cost,” Bergesen said. “Is that supporting them?”
The USOC assumes a highly protective stance and makes aggressive threats. “The US Olympics Committee has gone off the deep end, when it comes to intellectual property,” writes Gizmo editor Matt Novack. “It’s willing to sue anyone to protect their trademarks, even when the use is no real threat. But the committee’s latest claim is an entirely new level of absurdity.”
The restriction against companies other than news media outlets and official sponsors from using any Olympic reference is especially bizarre, he contends.
“Does that mean that a non-sponsor can’t retweet the official Olympics Twitter account without facing some kind of legal action?” Novack asks. “I guess there’s only one way to find out. Who’s going to be the first company to try?”
Bottom Line: New USOC warnings highlight the legal risks of even mentioning the Olympics in company tweets. They also cause consternation in marketing circles. Awareness of the rules is the best defense against receiving a nasty letter from the USOC and possible legal troubles.
Are the USOC marketing restrictions unreasonable? Please comment below.
William J. Comcowich founded and served as CEO of CyberAlert LLC, the predecessor of Glean.info. He is currently serving as Interim CEO and member of the Board of Directors. Glean.info provides customized media monitoring, media measurement and analytics solutions across all types of traditional and social media.
