Paralympic Games: Olympic Rings Tattoos Now Allowed

Original article published 30 August 2024 on our French sister blog La Revue.

On your marks, get set, go!

At the Paralympic Games, athletes were previously required to cover their Olympic rings tattoos or face disqualification. The International Paralympic Committee has decided to lift this ban for the Paris 2024 Games. In this blog we present our explanations and thoughts as intellectual property specialists.

After the Olympic Games comes the time of the Paralympic Games which are legally totally distinct from the Olympic Games. While the International Olympic Committee (IOC) governs the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games are governed by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC). The IOC was created in 1894 and is headquartered in Lausanne while the IPC was created in 1989 and is headquartered in Bonn. The games each have their own brand, owned by each Committee and a source of significant revenue, with many partnerships and derivative products.

The IOC is thus the owner of the trademark representing the famous Olympic rings, these five intertwined rings of blue, black, red, yellow and green representing the five continents, designed by Pierre de Coubertin himself in 1913. As for the IPC, it has been the owner for 20 years of the Agitos logo, which is made up of three commas, one blue, one green and one red. These three colours were chosen for similar reasons as the colours of the Olympic rings because they are the most frequent colours in the flags of the participating countries.

Like the IOC, the IPC sets the rules that athletes must follow as a condition of participating in the Paralympic Games. These are purely private rules, but their compliance is ensured since the potential sanctions on athletes for breach of the rules can be drastic, including, for example, disqualification or being stripped of their medals.

In 2012, the IPC decided to ban Paralympic athletes from displaying tattoos featuring the Olympic rings. The reason given by the IPC spokesperson in 2016, when a champion was disqualified on this basis, was the “likelihood of confusion”. This concept is well known to trademark law specialists. A trademark gives its owner the right to prohibit the use of an identical or similar sign for identical or similar goods or services, if it would create a “likelihood of confusion” in the mind of the public. If there is such a likelihood of confusion, there is infringement. In particular, the owner can prohibit the affixing of its trademark to competing products.

The use of this trademark law concept in the context of its application to Paralympic Games athletes did, however, raise certain questions. For example, since these are tattoos drawn on the athletes’ bodies: can the tattoo be considered to be used here as a “trademark”, i.e. used to identify the origin of a “product”? if so, what is the product? Can athletes be considered a product? Are Paralympic athletes “competing” with Olympic athletes for the purposes of trademark law?

In any case, these questions are now moot because, on August 23, the IPC announced its decision to waive this rule – which is rather good news.

Squire Patton Boggs is supporting Thibaud Lefrançois, a member of the French sitting volleyball team. Members of the firm were there to cheer him on during the team’s first match against favourites Kazakhstan.

Thanks to the “Pacte de performance”, a system created by the Fondation du Sport Français, Squire Patton Boggs supports four athletes, three of whom are participating or have participated in the Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games.

In addition to Thibaud Lefrançois, these include featherweight boxer Wassila Lkhadiri, weightlifter Marie-Josèphe Fegue, and Greco-Roman wrestler Ibrahim Ghanem. You can read more in our press release here.

Update on the Review of the Gambling Act 2005: Financial Risk Checks, Age Verification Processes and More to Follow

By Mike Llewellyn on August 30, 2024 Posted in Betting/Gambling, Gambling, Governance, Government, Law, Rules and regulations, UK

As commented on earlier this week by the Gambling Commission (“GC”) in its blog post, today sees the introduction of the requirement for online gambling operators to introduce what it describes as “light-touch” financial vulnerability checks and also the introduction of a pilot scheme on additional financial risk assessments for the largest online gambling operators. The GC has also published a follow-up blog post earlier this week on its approach to the pilot scheme for additional financial risk assessments.

The introduction of the requirement for remote gambling operators to conduct financial risk assessments / affordability checks on their customers has been one of the most hotly debated areas of reform considered as part of the previous Government’s review of the Gambling Act 2005 and the White Paper published in light of that review.

The GC’s latest blog also highlights the amendments to the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (“LCCP”) which are intended to strengthen age verification processes and procedures in physical gambling premises.

Gambling Sponsorship Codes of Conduct: What are they likely to mean for gambling sponsorship in the football and horseracing industries?

By Mike Llewellyn and Sophie Pritchard on August 9, 2024 Posted in Advertising, Betting/Gambling, Broadcasting, Football, Gambling, Governance, Government, Horse Racing, Law, Marketing, Rules and regulations, Sport England, UK, Women in Sport

Last month, both the English football industry and British horseracing industry published codes of conduct which address sponsorship arrangements between stakeholders in each of those sports and betting companies. These codes of conduct have been prepared following the 2020 Gambling Act 2005 Review, and the subsequent release of the White Paper ‘High Stakes: Gambling Reform for the Digital Age’ (the “White Paper”), which called on sports governing bodies to agree a set of guiding principles to help shape a gambling sponsorship code of conduct for sport.

Olympic Games: U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee Suing U.S. Beverage Company Over Trademark Infringement

By Marisol Mork and Lauryn Durham on August 8, 2024 Posted in Advertising, Brand protection, Competition and Markets Authority, IP Litigation, Marketing, Olympics, Social Media, Trade Mark, Trademark Infringement, Trademarks, US

As the Summer 2024 Olympics in Paris commences, the United States Olympic & Paralympics Committee (USOPC) is vigilant against unauthorized use of its trademarks. The USOPC filed a lawsuit against a U.S. beverage company, alleging the use of Olympic-related terms like “OLYMPIC” and “TEAM USA” without permission. These trademarks are vital for the USOPC’s funding efforts, and under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, it holds exclusive rights to commercially exploit them in the U.S.

Check out the full post: U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee Suing U.S. Beverage Company Over Trademark Infringement | Global IP & Technology Law Blog (iptechblog.com)

The Olympic Esports Games: A game-changing step for the Olympic movement?

By Mike Llewellyn, Simone White and Sophie Pritchard on July 22, 2024 Posted in Competition, eSports, Governance, Olympics, Technology

As the attention of the sporting world is poised to focus on the next edition of the Olympic Games in Paris, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has taken the opportunity to announce its partnership with the National Olympic Committee (NOC) of Saudi Arabia to host the inaugural Olympic Esports Games 2025 in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

This partnership between the IOC and the Saudi NOC will be for 12 years, with the Olympic Esports Games anticipated to be held regularly during that time. The announcement to host these games in KSA comes at a time when KSA is also hosting the inaugural Esports World Cup, with this initial edition of the World Cup boasting a combined total prize pool of $60,000,000 – the largest in esports history.

This article considers the background to the IOC’s announcement (including its involvement with esports to date), as well as a look ahead to what we might expect from the initial Olympic Esports Games and the IOC’s decision to bring esports within the Olympic fold.

Paris Olympics & Paralympics – Part 2: What could possibly go wrong?

By Henry Goldschmidt on July 16, 2024 Posted in Anti-doping, Betting/Gambling, CAS, Dispute Resolution, Marketing, Olympics, Rules and regulations, Sports Policy

Having recently examined some of the legal issues that have overshadowed the lead-up to the 2024 Paris Olympics and Paralympics, in this article I will consider what could keep contentious/regulatory lawyers (and journalists) busy once the Games formally begin on 26 July 2024.

With ten days still to go before the Opening Ceremony, it is difficult to predict with any certainty what will happen during (or outside) the competition venues when thing get underway. However, as with any Olympiad, controversy is guaranteed and legal proceedings will be inevitable, including before specialist tribunals set up in Paris to resolve disputes arising during (and immediately prior to) the Games…

Meet Gabe Pennington – Corporate lawyer by day and Touch World Cup 2024 England Captain in his spare time!

By Squire Patton Boggs on July 10, 2024 Posted in Health & Wellbeing, Touch Rugby, UK

At Squire Patton Boggs, we pride ourselves on having a Sports and Entertainment team comprised of remarkable individuals, and today, we are thrilled to introduce Gabe Pennington, Corporate associate in our Manchester office, who will be Captaining the England Mixed Team at the Touch World Cup 2024, taking place 15-21 July in Nottingham, UK.

In his day job, Gabe advises on national and international transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, private equity, corporate reorganisations and restructuring, shareholder arrangements and general corporate advice, and in his spare time, Gabe balances his demanding legal career with his passion for sport.

But how does he manage to excel in both arenas? He shares his journey and tips for striking the perfect work-life balance. Read on to find out more.

Paris Olympics & Paralympics – Part 1: Pre-Games Spotlight

By Henry Goldschmidt on July 2, 2024 Posted in Anti-doping, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI), Eligibility, Governance, Olympics, Rules and regulations, Sports Policy

The cloud of Covid-19 (which loomed so large over Tokyo 2020 and Beijing 2022) has thankfully dissipated, but the lead up to the 2024 Olympiad in Paris (the “Paris Games”) has nevertheless been punctuated by logistical and legal challenges.

Hosting the world’s largest multi-sport international event – attended by thousands of participants, support personnel, officials, media representatives and spectators – inevitably presents practical and operational complexities.^[1]When you throw in the existing geo-political climate, medical/environmental considerations, social activism and the overarching quest for many athletes to reach the pinnacle of competition, it is inevitable that lawyers will be involved (to some degree).

In this article, I address some of the key legal talking points that have dominated the build-up to the Paris Olympics and Paralympics. In part 2, to follow, I will then consider the legal issues that might expect to arise once the Paris Games formally commence on 26 July 2024.

First Major US Lawsuit Against University Head Coach and Boosters Over Alleged Failed NIL Deal

By Lauryn Durham on June 28, 2024 Posted in Amateur Sport, American Football, Case review, College Sport, Dispute Resolution, Governance, Intellectual Property, Name Image Likeness (NIL), Rules and regulations, US, US Sport

Former University of Florida (“UF”) recruit Jaden Rashada (“Rashada”) has filed a lawsuit against the University’s head football coach, Director of Player Engagement & NIL, boosters, and the company that partially funded an alleged failed NIL deal.

Rashada claims that the UF head football coach, amongst others, defrauded him out of millions of dollars in NIL money, asserting fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, negligent misrepresentations, tortious interference with a business relationship or contract, aiding and abetting tortious interference, and vicarious liability.

How Sports Clubs and Governing Bodies are Protecting Their Officials and Athletes

By Wayne Barnes, Grace King and Olivia Canessa Davies on June 19, 2024 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Discipline, Discrimination, European Sport, Governance, Health & Wellbeing, Law, Rules and regulations, Social Media, Technology, Technology in Sport

Former Arsenal Manager, Arsène Wenger famously said “We have gone from a vertical society to a horizontal society where everybody has an opinion about every decision you make, and everybody has an opinion on the Internet straight away.”^[1]

In 2024, Wenger’s words could not be more relatable. The internet has many wonderful features. It allows us to share, create, inspire, generate income, raise awareness, and meet new people. It has given us access to things that Wenger wouldn’t have even thought about when he made that statement but, in 2024, the internet and social media permits direct access to sports men and women that we do not know and may never meet. And it is that direct access, wrapped in a cloak of internet anonymity, coupled with the belief that there will be no consequence for what is said or done online that has led to a dramatic growth in online abuse over the past decade.

What does this look like in reality?

Remember the classic saying, if you haven’t got anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all. Well, it appears online, we are not all playing by the same set of rules.

Ahead of the UEFA Euro 2024 tournament in Germany, instead of focusing on the beautiful game, the England squad have been briefed on the threat of online abuse. Police officers have reassured players that they will “take seriously” any abuse during the tournament. ^[2]