Trademark Unraveled- The U.S. Olympic Committee Versus Knitters o

Introduction

In June 2012, the United States Olympic Committee (USOC), a federally chartered corporation responsible for U.S participation in the Olympic, Paralympic, and Pan-American Games, issued a cease-and-desist letter to an online social networking group for craft enthusiasts This action exemplifies the USOC's statutory authority to protect specific symbols and terminology related to these major sporting events, particularly during an Olympic Games year when such letters are frequently dispatched.

Cease-and-desist letters serve as a vital mechanism for safeguarding intellectual property rights, where the owner, such as the US Olympic Committee (USOC), notifies individuals or organizations, like online social networks, of perceived violations These violations may include improper usage of the term "Olympic," unauthorized simulations, and the unapproved use of the trademarked Olympic rings The letters typically caution the alleged infringers that failure to comply with the demands to "cease and desist" may result in legal action to enforce these intellectual property rights.

This common business practice often leads the target of the letter to cease and desist 6 They may be happy to comply, once

1 See Juliet Macur, U.S.O.C Knits a Controversy, N.Y T IMES (June 21,

2012, 9:25 PM), http://london2012.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/u-s-o-c-knits- a-controversy

2 Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C §§ 220502–

3 U.S Olympic Comm v Olympic Supply, Inc., 655 F Supp 2d 599, 601 (D Md 2009)

4 See Deborah A Wilcox, Resist Cease and Desist: A Lighter Approach

A standard cease and desist letter typically details the trademark held by the rights holder, articulates the reasons the recipient is infringing upon that trademark, and outlines the legal claims for trademark infringement under both federal and state laws.

The letter typically ends by demanding that the recipient provide comprehensive details regarding their use of the trademark, along with written guarantees that the infringement will stop, or else face potential legal consequences.

6 William McGeveran, Rethinking Trademark Fair Use, 94 I OWA L.

A study on cease-and-desist letters related to copyright and trademark claims revealed that recipients often feel intimidated by the potential legal consequences of their actions, fearing lawsuits and litigation costs Many do not realize that litigation can provide a platform to challenge the validity of the trademark or the owner's claims Consequently, when confronted with aggressive legal letters, most individuals tend to back down swiftly, resulting in minimal public acknowledgment, typically confined to legal journals.

The US Olympic Committee (USOC) has demonstrated significant effectiveness in utilizing cease-and-desist letters to safeguard its interests, despite encountering unique challenges This success persists even when faced with weak intellectual property claims or strong potential defenses.

In her note, Regina Schaffer-Goldman discusses the challenges posed by cease-and-desist letters, highlighting that the high costs of litigation often compel recipients to settle and self-censor their speech instead of pursuing their right to use specific language in court This phenomenon illustrates the significant impact of legal threats on free expression, particularly when confronting unseemly or unsavory content.

Trademarks are essential identifiers for goods and services, and understanding trademark law is crucial for anyone facing potential infringement claims The online resource "Frequently Asked Questions (And Answers) About Trademark" offers valuable insights into what to expect when dealing with trademark infringement lawsuits It outlines the implications of various legal terms and concepts, including the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which are pertinent when responding to cease and desist letters Additionally, the article emphasizes the importance of knowing one's rights and the potential protections available under both trademark and copyright laws.

The "Chilling Effects" project, a collaboration among various prestigious institutions including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Harvard, and Stanford, highlights concerns that individuals and corporations may exploit intellectual property laws to suppress online expression This initiative aims to raise awareness about the potential misuse of legal frameworks to silence voices on the internet For more information, visit [Chilling Effects](http://chillingeffects.org).

There are surprisingly few documented cases regarding the trademarks and protected terms of the U.S Olympic Committee (USOC) Notable cases include S.F Arts & Athletics, Inc v U.S Olympic Comm (1987), O-M Bread, Inc v U.S Olympic Comm (1995), and U.S Olympic Comm v Intelicense Corp (1984) Additional relevant cases are U.S Olympic Comm v Tobyhanna Camp Corp (2010), U.S Olympic Comm v Olympic Supply, Inc (2009), U.S Olympic Comm v Xclusive Leisure & Hospitality Ltd (2008), and U.S Olympic Comm v Am Media, Inc These cases highlight the legal landscape surrounding the USOC's trademark protections.

156 F Supp 2d 1200 (D Colo 2001); U.S Olympic Comm v Union Sport Apparel, 220 U.S.P.Q 526 (E.D Va 1983); Stop the Olympic Prison v U.S Olympic Comm., 489 F Supp 1112 (S.D.N.Y 1980)

The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) faces significant challenges regarding public perception, as the Olympics is a globally recognized event that is marketed as belonging to the people This creates a strong sense of popular ownership over its associated marks and symbols Although the Supreme Court has ruled that certain protected terms do not have an unqualified "generic" status, allowing the USOC to control their usage, this understanding has not yet permeated the general public While the USOC defines "Olympian" as someone who has participated in the Olympic Games, the term is also commonly used to signify exceptional effort in various literary and cultural contexts.

Before the establishment of the USOC and its trademark rights, the term "Olympic" was commonly used in business as a geographic and cultural reference, such as in the Olympic Mountains of Washington State, located on the Olympic Peninsula and named after the Greek mountain Olympus, which was the home of the original Olympic games.

The term "Olympians," originating from Greek mythology, represents a prominent cultural reference that extends beyond its mythological roots Many Greek diners in New York and various "Olympic" gas stations, restaurants, and tourist shops in Washington State utilize this term, likely perceiving it as a fitting cultural nod or geographical descriptor.

In the article "Trademarks, Speech, and the Gay Olympics Case," Robert N Kravitz examines the conflict between the United States Olympic Committee's (USOC) authority to regulate non-commercial uses of the term "Olympic" and the protections afforded by the First Amendment Notably, the author shares anecdotal evidence from several children who participated in summer camp competitions labeled as "Olympic."

13 General use of the word “olympian” is reflected in Olympian, F REE

D ICTIONARY , http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Olympian (last visited Mar 1,

2013) (defining an Olympian as “[o]ne who is superior to all others”)

The Olympian newspaper, originally named "The Daily Olympian," has a rich history dating back to its establishment in 1889 in Olympia, Washington For more details, visit the official site at THEOLYMPIAN.COM.

15 See, e.g., N ATIONAL P ARK S ERVICE , U.S D EP ’ T OF THE I NTERIOR ,

O LYMPIC : E UROPEAN AND E URO -A MERICAN H ISTORY 1–2 (2004), available at http://www.nps.gov/olym/historyculture/upload/Euro-history.pdf (describing the history and discovery of the Olympic Peninsula)

16 Cf Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C § 220506(d) (2006) (allowing businesses near to the Olympic Peninsula using

“Olympic” before September 21, 1950 to have grandfathered use of the word)

Disclosures

The USOC: The Olympic Spirit, American Style

Since the inception of the modern Olympics in 1896, the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and its earlier organizations have overseen U.S participation in the Games In 1950, Congress officially chartered the USOC, solidifying its role in American Olympic efforts.

1978 Congress enacted the ASA, 32 which established operating principles and goals and, importantly, provided the USOC with

A lurker is an individual who observes online forums or communities without actively participating or posting They may have minimal engagement, often knowing a lot about the community while contributing little or nothing In real life, a lurker can be likened to someone who quietly witnesses conversations and events without drawing attention to themselves Lurkers may frequent online spaces to monitor interactions, yet their presence often goes unnoticed.

The "Friend Argument" is a tactic used by individuals to showcase their connection and solidarity with a particular group by highlighting their friendship with a member of that group.

R ATIONAL W IKI , http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/friend_argument (last visited Feb

26, 2013); see generally T ANNER C OLBY , S OME OF M Y B EST F RIENDS ARE

In "Black: The Strange Story of Integration in America" (2012), USOC Spokesman Patrick Sandusky addressed the controversy by invoking "The Friend Argument," stating to The New York Times that his wife and mother-in-law are knitters.

The history of the U.S Olympic Committee (USOC) is primarily derived from case summaries and information provided by the organization itself Notable references include the Supreme Court case S.F Arts & Athletics, Inc v U.S Olympic Comm., 483 U.S 522 (1987), and the detailed historical overview available on the Team USA website For further insights into the USOC's history, visit their official page at http://www.teamusa.org/About-the-USOC/Inside-the-USOC/History.

31 The Committee was then known as the U.S Olympic Association See

The Amateur Sports Act of 1978, also known as the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, provides significant property rights concerning marks and terminology linked to the Olympics, along with extensive enforcement powers for these rights This article will reference both the original act and its amendments collectively as the Amateur Sports Act (ASA), noting that the discussed provisions remain unaffected by the revisions.

The conferral of Congressional authority was steeped in the Cold War context:

The primary goal of the Act was to protect the United States Olympic Committee's (USOC) ability to generate essential funding, which is crucial for supporting America's elite amateur athletes in global competitions, without relying on the substantial government subsidies that are available to athletes from other countries.

In the 1970s, the United States was unique in not providing public funding for its athletes, leading to national frustration as state-supported athletes like Soviet gymnast Olga Korbut achieved remarkable success Korbut, who was groomed in state-sponsored programs from the age of eight, won four gold and two silver medals in the 1972 and 1976 Olympics Her accomplishments were part of a larger Soviet dominance in sports, as the USSR secured 125 medals compared to the U.S.'s 94 in 1976 This disparity ultimately prompted the passage of the Amateur Sports Act (ASA) two years later.

33 Noởlle K Nish, How Far Have We Come? A Look at the Olympic and

The Amateur Sports Act of 1998, alongside the United States Olympic Committee and the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, highlights the evolution of sports law, particularly noting that prior to the Amateur Sports Act (ASA) of 1978, the protection of marks and terminology in sports was primarily enforced through criminal sanctions.

34 U.S Olympic Comm v Intelicense Corp., 737 F.2d 263, 264 (2d Cir

35 See id at 266 (“Because the USOC is the only [National Olympic

Committee] that does not receive formal financial assistance from the Government, financing the United States Olympic team poses unique obstacles.”)

37 See Alex Voinich, Olga Korbut Achievements, O LGA K ORBUT , http://olgakorbut.org/honors (last visited Mar 2, 2013)

38 Lee Byron et al., A Map of Olympic Medals, N.Y T IMES (Aug 4, 2008), http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/08/04/sports/olympics/20080804_ME DALCOUNT_MAP.html

39 Other considerations were the perceived disorganization and ineffectiveness of the USOC and the U.S Olympic effort See J AMES A.R.

In "International Sports Law" by N Afziger, the history of adoption is explored, particularly in the context of the 1980 Winter Olympic Games held in Lake Placid, New York Following the adoption of the ASA, the United States achieved remarkable success, doubling its gold medal count and increasing its total medal tally from ten to twelve.

The New York Times provides a detailed overview of Olympic medals, highlighting that host nations typically perform better during the Games However, historical data indicates that the performance of the U.S team declined in subsequent Winter Olympics, falling below earlier achievements.

To enhance the competitiveness of the U.S Olympic team, the ASA expected the USOC to allow contributors and suppliers to utilize Olympic marks and terminology To safeguard this income, Congress granted the USOC enhanced authority, providing rights that often surpassed those of typical trademark owners and strengthening enforcement capabilities Consequently, the USOC has effectively capitalized on licensing and sponsorship, generating $141 million in 2011 and anticipating over $250 million during the 2012 London Games However, in non-Games years, the USOC's expenses usually outstrip its revenues significantly.

It must be noted that the model of Olympic competition is now quite different from that understood by Congress in 1978

In 1986, shortly after the enactment of the Amateur Sports Act (ASA), the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) revised its rules to allow professional athletes to compete, resulting in a diverse group of amateur and professional athletes representing the U.S Today, it is common for players from major leagues like the NBA, WNBA, U.S Tennis Association, and the Association of Volleyball Professionals to be recruited for Olympic representation.

40 Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C § 220506(b)

41 S.F Arts & Athletics, Inc v U.S Olympic Comm., 483 U.S 522, 523

(1987) (noting that the enhanced protections are not greater than necessary to protect a legitimate interest and thus does not infringe upon First Amendment rights); see also Intelicence Corp., 737 F.2d at 265–66

The US Olympic Committee (USOC) provides access to its 990 tax forms on its official website, specifically under the Finance section of Team USA In 2011, the total revenue reported was $141 million, a decrease from $251 million in 2010, which was anticipated due to the fact that broadcasting revenue is only recognized during Olympic Games years.

43 See id (noting expenses of $185 million in 2011; tax forms for prior non-Games years show a similar revenue gap)

In "The Law of the Olympic Games," Alexandre Miguel Mestre explores the historical context of amateurism within the Olympic movement (TMC Asser Press 2009, pp 72–74) Additionally, Nafziger addresses the evolving perceptions of amateurism, the difficulties in maintaining a strict definition, and the approach taken by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) in managing these challenges (Nafziger, pp 137–46, 293–96).

Olympic Changes: Dollars and Sense, PBS (July 23, 1996), http://www.pbs.org/ newshour/forum/july96/olympics_7-23.html (discussing the timing of the USOC treatment of amateurism)

Kevin Love (power forward for the Minnesota Timberwolves) 45 and Serena Williams (Wimbledon winner 2002, 2003, 2009,

Ravelry.com and the Ravelympics: A Knitting

Can They Do That? Understanding the Legal Reach of

THE LEGAL REACH OF THE USOC

Beginning this analysis by examining the USOC's actions might lead some to mistakenly view Ravelry.com members and other crafters as antagonistic towards intellectual property law However, it is important to understand that this perception is not representative of the knitting community as a whole Knitters value the integrity of the Olympic Games and recognize the dedication of our country's top athletes, understanding that disrespecting this event undermines their hard work and achievements.

I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that right then - that’s when the knitters went - to use a technical term, bash*t insane

All of a sudden I was getting a lot of mail, and seeing a lot of tweets, and a lot of them were telling me that I was going to have to

DO SOMETHING, and asking me what I thought

99 See Memmott, supra note 23 (discussing how people complained on

USOC’s Facebook page); Pearl-McPhee, supra note 98 (discussing how there were “many tweets” about the incident)

100 See, e.g., Memmott, supra note 1 (discussing how angry knitters left messages for the USOC on Facebook, Twitter, and by email)

The US Olympic Committee (USOC) has faced significant backlash, offending countless individuals with its actions, as noted by Macur One notable instance occurred in August 2012 when "The Daily Show" aired a satirical segment titled “The Double-Wide World of Sports,” which mocked the USOC's attempt to challenge the branding of an event called “The Redneck Olympics.” This incident exemplifies the ongoing controversy surrounding USOC's cease-and-desist letters.

Daily Show: Episode No 17138 (Comedy Central television broadcast Aug 9,

2012), available at http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/?date 12-08-

102 See Kimberli, Memorial & ReNaming Special Ceremony, R AVELRY (June 26, 2012), http://www.ravelry.com/discuss/ravellenic-games-2012/

2196663 (comment) (membership required for access)

103 Statement from USOC Spokesperson Patrick Sandusky, T EAM USA (June 21, 2012, 12:07 PM), http://www.teamusa.org/News/2012/June/21/ statement-from-usoc-spokesperson-patrick-sandusky.aspx

The personal assertions regarding the event's name change to Ravellenic Games are unquantifiable and unverifiable As discussed in Kimberli, the shift was influenced by the need for publishers to profit from knitting patterns, acknowledging the effort involved in creating them The community values respect and is unlikely to share patterns without permission, recognizing that any transgressions are typically innocent and can be corrected with better information or warnings This change reflects the responsiveness of both the website and event organizers to concerns raised by the USOC.

The swift resolution of the dispute in favor of the USOC underscores the importance of examining its authority in trademark protection While many accused infringers typically comply after receiving a cease-and-desist letter, it is crucial to evaluate the USOC's claims of infringement against relevant legal standards Unlike other corporations, the USOC's unique position necessitates a thorough analysis of its enforcement actions and the implications for trademark rights.

The USOC Notice reflects a conciliatory tone, aiming to address concerns while acknowledging the frustrations of the audience, as highlighted by Pearl-McPhee's analysis.

Many people often perceive a design as entirely derivative, leading them to believe they can create a superior version without using a pattern For insights on this topic, refer to Holly Shaltz's tutorial at HJS Studio, where she guides you on how to design your own creations.

Knitting Pattern, HJS S TUDIO , http://www.hjsstudio.com/designknit.html (last visited Apr 15, 2013)

107 A helpful example on a FAQ page of a website to promote an event for those who love knitting socks:

May I have your permission to use your logo to make Sock Summit Souvenirs?

The Sock Summit logo is a trademarked symbol owned by Sock Summit LLC, and while vendors are encouraged to create their own commemorative Sock Summit colorways, these should be original and inspired designs rather than direct reproductions We value creativity in our community, but we also operate as a business.

Please use the provided button-logo for your blog, but refrain from placing it on items for sale, as it is our property We will soon offer a range of merchandise, including t-shirts, mugs, and bags Thank you for supporting our business, enabling us to continue our efforts.

Frequently Asked Questions, S OCK S UMMIT 2011, http://www.socksummit.com/ faqs (last visited Feb 24, 2013)

108 See supra note 10 and accompanying text

109 See USOC Notice, supra note 65

The organization perceives itself as fulfilling a quasi-public duty to safeguard Olympic trademarks, imagery, and terminology, ensuring they are respected Given its significant trademark enforcement authority, it is crucial to closely examine its actions to prevent any potential overreach.

Understanding the ASA Framework

The ASA granted to the USOC exclusive rights to use certain enumerated words, symbols and emblems closely associated with the International Olympic movement, including:

(1) the name “United States Olympic Committee”;

(2) the symbol of the International Olympic Committee, consisting of

(3) the emblem of the corporation [USOC] ; and

(4) the words “Olympic”, “Olympiad”, [and] “Citius Altius

The ASA grants the USOC the authority to enter into licensing agreements with suppliers and sponsors, as well as the ability to initiate civil actions against individuals for violations of the Lanham Trademark Act This includes unauthorized use of trademarks or words that may cause confusion, deception, or falsely imply a connection with the USOC.

111 Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C § 220506(a)

(2006) “Citius Altius Fortius” is Latin for “Faster Higher Stronger,” the Olympic motto T HE O LYMPIC M USEUM , T HE O LYMPIC S YMBOLS 1, 5 (2007), available at http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_

The corporation is authorized to initiate a civil action against individuals for unauthorized use, as outlined in the Act of July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C.), unless stated otherwise in subsection (d) of this section.

The Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C § 1051 et seq.) prohibits individuals from using a corporation's trademark without consent for commercial purposes, including the sale of goods, services, or the promotion of theatrical exhibitions and athletic events.

(1) the symbol described in subsection (a)(2) of this section;

(2) the emblem described in subsection (a)(3) of this section;

(3)the words described in subsection (a)(4) of this section, or any combination or simulation of those words tending to cause confusion

The ASA primarily restricts unauthorized commercial use of Olympic-related words and marks, activating USOC enforcement only when such uses aim to sell goods, services, or promote events Consequently, fair use—such as scholarly writing, reporting, and public discourse—is exempt from these restrictions Therefore, terms like "Olympics" and "Ravelympics" can be utilized freely in this article, and news organizations are permitted to cover Olympic events without needing USOC approval.

Three cases illustrate the essential requirement that speech must be used without authorization "for the purpose of trade, [or] to induce the sale of any goods or services," which subsequently leads to restrictions by the ASA One notable case is Stop the Olympic Prison v.

A community group filed for a declaratory judgment against the U.S Olympic Committee (USOC) after being ordered to stop using the term "Olympic" and the Olympic rings in their promotional materials The group was formed to oppose the planned use of Olympic facilities in Lake Placid, arguing that the USOC's demands could mislead the public or create a false association with Olympic, Paralympic, or Pan-American Games events.

Any trademark, trade name, symbol, or insignia that falsely implies a connection or endorsement by the International Olympic Committee, the International Paralympic Committee, the Pan-American Sports Organization, or the associated corporation is prohibited.

The USOC's claim that Ravelympics is merely a simulation and therefore prohibited by the Act is fundamentally incorrect This assertion will be further examined in Part III.D, which addresses the application of the ASA to Ravelympics.

115 See S.F Arts & Athletics, Inc v U.S Olympic Comm., 483 U.S 522,

565 (1987) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (discussing how fair use prevents trademark law from regulating a lot of noncommercial speech)

116 See, e.g., Stop the Olympic Prison v U.S Olympic Comm., 489 F

An offended knitter has the ability to create and promote a webpage advocating for knitting to be recognized as an Olympic sport, highlighting specific Ravelympic events as the qualifications for Olympic knitters This act serves as a parody of the Olympic movement and the US Olympic Committee (USOC), and such commentary would be protected from USOC objections due to its noncommercial nature, which falls outside the protections of the Amateur Sports Act (ASA).

118 Stop the Olympic Prison, 489 F Supp at 1112

119 Id at 1116 a prison at the conclusion of the 1980 Winter Games 120 The community group prevailed 121 The district court noted:

The broad language of the Act does not restrict the use of the term "Olympic" and its associated symbols solely to the defendant and its licensees The media has the right to report on Olympic events, which naturally involves using the term "Olympic" and displaying images that may include these symbols Congress intended to prevent unauthorized individuals from using mottos and emblems in a misleading or confusing manner.

The district court emphasized that, despite potential violations of the USOC's rights from the group's poster sales, the free distribution of the controversial poster would not fall under the statute's jurisdiction This interpretation was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in San Francisco.

In the case of Arts & Athletics, Inc v U.S Olympic Committee, the court determined that the Amateur Sports Act (ASA) primarily regulates the use of the term "Olympic" to promote the sale of goods or services This regulation is aimed at limiting "commercial speech," which the court recognized may impose stricter limitations than those applicable to other types of speech protected under the First Amendment The District Court of Colorado further clarified that the ASA's main focus is on controlling commercial speech, as seen in the case of U.S Olympic Committee v American.

The court ruled that the sale of the guide "OLYMPICS USA" by a publishing company did not constitute commercial speech, despite being sold for profit This decision was based on the finding that the references to the Olympics within the guide did not serve as advertisements nor did they promote any goods or services associated with the Olympic Games.

124 S.F Arts & Athletics, Inc v U.S Olympic Comm., 483 U.S 522

128 U.S Olympic Comm v Am Media Inc., 156 F Supp.2d 1200, 1200 (D Colo 2001)

The Amateur Sports Act (ASA) empowers the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to restrict speech related to unauthorized promotional uses of the term "Olympic," specifically when it pertains to athletic or theatrical events The Supreme Court ruled that the San Francisco group's attempt to host the "Gay Olympic Games" violated the USOC's rights, emphasizing that the ASA allows the USOC to protect against both unauthorized commercial use and promotion of athletic events without needing to prove confusion, unlike trademark cases Additionally, the Court affirmed that the USOC can enforce these rights without infringing on the First Amendment, provided the usage aligns with the commercial activities safeguarded by the ASA.

Importantly, the USOC is statutorily required to show that

The US Olympic Committee (USOC) has the authority to address instances where a combination or simulation of protected words may lead to confusion or deception regarding its connection to the Olympics This power is particularly relevant when such terms are used in trade without modification, as it allows the USOC to take action against misleading representations before they occur Ultimately, the ability of the USOC to enforce its rights hinges on the specific circumstances surrounding the alleged infringement.

Distinguishing Lanham

Comparing the protections offered by the ASA and the Lanham Act is essential for understanding their relationship, as the ASA provides distinct protections that differ from those in the Lanham Act Under the Lanham Act, unauthorized use of trademarked words and symbols in commerce is actionable, highlighting the unique legal frameworks established by each act.

The ASA provides robust protections for the special Olympic words and marks, making any unauthorized use in trade actionable without needing to prove confusion However, using a combination or simulation of these words to promote goods or services is only actionable if it tends to cause confusion or falsely suggests a connection with the Olympic Movement This approach aligns more closely with the protections outlined in the Lanham Act.

Key considerations include the standards for evaluating infringement, where the differences between the ASA and the Lanham Act become less distinct While there are notable variations in their statutory language, the ASA's protections are activated by particular commercial activities aimed at "inducing the sale of any goods or services," a category of actions that may be subject to interpretation.

142 See S.F Arts & Athletics, Inc v U.S Olympic Comm., 483 U.S 522,

145 See Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C § 220506(c) (2006)

The protection afforded to the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) regarding the use of Olympic words and symbols is distinct from standard trademark protections Unlike typical trademark cases, the USOC is not required to demonstrate that unauthorized usage is likely to cause confusion Additionally, those who use these terms without authorization cannot rely on the usual statutory defenses available in trademark disputes.

148 36 U.S.C § 220506(c) more limited than the broader description of commercial activity under the Lanham Act 149 However, cases applying the ASA have often read the ASA as being triggered by

The application of established trademark precedents has blurred the lines between statutory provisions, particularly regarding the ASA's requirement that a simulation must "tend[] to cause confusion." Limited case law exists to clarify whether this standard aligns with the Lanham Act's "likely to cause confusion," but it is probable that courts will treat them as functionally equivalent While distinctions in the circumstances triggering ASA protections are still recognized, key elements of actual infringement are likely to be interpreted consistently with trademark law The inconsistent application of the commercial use standard by courts in relation to internet activity introduces uncertainty, particularly in determining whether an activity serves a trading purpose or not Additionally, the potential for the Lanham Act to enhance ASA protections remains a noteworthy consideration, despite courts asserting this without thorough analysis.

149 15 U.S.C § 1125(a) (2006) (“on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof ”)

150 See, e.g., U.S Olympic Comm v Olympic Supply, Inc., 655 F Supp

The OASA empowers the USOC to restrict specific commercial and promotional uses of the term "Olympic" and its associated symbols, focusing primarily on commercial speech This legal framework was established in the case of S.F Arts & Athletics, Inc v U.S Olympic Comm., which underscores the importance of protecting Olympic branding in commercial contexts.

152 See Margreth Barrett, Domain Names, Trademarks and the First

Amendment: Searching for Meaningful Boundaries, 39 C ONN L R EV 973, 985

(2007) (“[A]t least in the Internet context, recent court decisions have stretched the traditional understanding of ‘use in Commerce’ (and its subcomponent ‘trademark use’) practically beyond recognition.”)

153 See, e.g., S.F Arts & Athletics, Inc v U.S Olympic Comm., 483 U.S

522, 573 fn.20 (1987) (“Congress refers to the USOC’s authority over the use of

The USOC's authority to enforce its trademarks is distinct from the broader protections offered by the Lanham Act, which could potentially provide additional avenues for addressing trademark infringement, such as dilution and unfair competition The USOC's cease-and-desist letters primarily target unauthorized use of its protected marks, as outlined in the Amateur Sports Act (ASA) Notably, the 1998 amendment to the ASA allows the USOC to initiate civil actions against individuals for remedies under the Lanham Act, a shift from previous language that limited such actions to specific violations This evolution in the ASA underscores the USOC's commitment to safeguarding its trademarks effectively.

The distinction in No 105-225, 112 Stat 1253, 1469 (1998) suggests an effort to solidify the ASA as the primary legal authority for rights related to words and marks, while viewing the Lanham Act primarily as a means to enforce those rights This interpretation aligns with Congress's choice to establish a notably different legislative framework rather than solely depending on the Lanham Act Additionally, it resonates with the Supreme Court's observation that certain words may retain some generic significance, as highlighted in S.F Arts & Athletics, where the Court noted that while Congress may not grant exclusive rights to a generic term, it can recognize that such a term may acquire a secondary meaning, thereby allowing its exclusive use by the entity that holds the mark.

154 See, e.g., U.S Olympic Comm v Am Media, Inc., 156 F Supp 2d

The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) can assert trademark rights under the Lanham Act to combat misuse of its marks, particularly when such use implies official endorsement or involvement by the USOC The Act allows the USOC to pursue claims if it can substantiate its allegations, thereby protecting its traditional trademark rights against unauthorized usage.

155 Provisions relating to the registrations of trademarks can be found at

157 “Thus, the use of RAVELYMPICS is prohibited by the Act.” USOC

The letter briefly mentioned additional legal claims, stating, "These marks therefore are protected under the Lanham Act." It highlighted that Ravelry.com’s unauthorized use of the term "OLYMPIC," along with variations like "RAVELYMPICS," could potentially lead to trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution of well-known trademarks, as presented by the USOC, without addressing possible claims of dilution or unfair competition.

The ASA Applied to Patterns and Postings

Patterns for Sale

Patterns for sale that are promoted using the word

The use of the term "Olympic" or the Olympic rings in patterns, such as "Marcella’s pattern for an Olympic scarf," violates the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASA) regulations The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) is not required to prove that such usage causes consumer confusion; it only needs to establish that the term is being used without authorization.

The use of the term "Olympic" or the protected Olympic rings for commercial purposes, such as promoting or selling goods or services, constitutes an infringement on the statutory rights of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Any patterns that incorporate these protected words or marks, whether in promotional materials, descriptions, or content, violate these rights and should be avoided.

The use of the term "Olympic" in promotional materials is not a legal requirement but a technical necessity for discoverability; it must appear in the description, title, or tags to be found through searches Patterns for sale that do not include "Olympic" but feature protected words or marks in their designs could also be infringing, yet their obscurity would make them less relevant and harder to find.

162 In knitting parlance, to say that the pattern contains the word

The term "Olympic" or the Olympic rings refers to a set of guidelines that detail how to replicate the word or symbol These instructions often come in the form of charted guidelines, providing users with the necessary steps to produce the symbol accurately in their final product.

According to 36 U.S.C § 220506(c) (2006), certain symbols, emblems, words, and other marks related to the Olympic Games are considered infringements on the exclusive rights of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to utilize those designations.

164 See S.F Arts & Athletics, Inc v U.S Olympic Comm., 483 U.S 522,

530 (1987) (noting that, unlike the Lanham Act, the ASA does not require the USOC to prove a likelihood of confusion to establish infringement for use of the word “Olympic”)

165 See U.S Olympic Comm v Am Media, Inc., 156 F Supp 2d 1200,

1207 (D Colo 2001) (discussing commercial speech and citing Bolger v Youngs Drug Prods Corp., 463 U.S 60, 66 (1983)) removed from the website, either by the Raverly.com users that posted them or by Ravelry.com 166

Free Patterns and Postings

Free patterns, regardless of whether they feature the word "Olympic" or the Olympic rings, are generally considered easy cases for sharing According to legal precedents like Stop the Olympic Prison, San Francisco Arts & Athletics, and American Media, if the usage of these patterns is not for commercial purposes, it does not require authorization from the Committee Therefore, sharing and posting these patterns for free is permissible.

Marcella's Olympic scarf pattern can be freely promoted without restrictions from the ASA, indicating that the USOC's demands may have exceeded their authority under the ASA.

I should have the freedom to share information about my completed projects, such as showcasing my Olympic scarf, without violating ASA provisions, even if my design includes protected Olympic words and marks This perspective aligns with the USOC spokesman's statement that using the Olympic logo for personal use to support the Games is viewed positively.

Under the Lanham Act analysis, the outcome for patterns sold should remain consistent; however, demonstrating infringement related to pattern sales is more straightforward under the ASA This is because the ASA does not require the USOC to prove a likelihood of confusion, thereby offering the USOC enhanced protections for those patterns.

167 Stop the Olympic Prison v U.S Olympic Comm., 489 F Supp 1112 (S.D.N.Y 1980)

168 S.F Arts & Athletics, Inc v U.S Olympic Comm., 483 U.S 522

169 U.S Olympic Comm v Am Media, Inc., 156 F Supp 2d 1200 (D Colo 2001)

The court elaborated on the elements of commercial speech, highlighting that materials featuring the term "Olympic" were distributed at no cost, as noted in Stop the Olympic Prison, 489 F Supp at 1121.

“sold or distributed commercially” there could be no violation under the ASA)

According to USOC spokesman Patrick Sandusky, while individuals are encouraged to use the Olympic logo to support the Olympic Games for personal purposes, the concern arises when it is used commercially without proper notification to the organization.

There are some circumstances however, where examination under a liberal interpretation of the Lanham Act’s

The interpretation of "commercial use" can vary significantly, as illustrated by the difference between a single pattern for an Olympic scarf submitted by a knitting professor and a collection of Olympic-themed patterns offered for free by a professional designer The latter scenario, which aims to attract Ravelry.com users to the designer's website for potential sales of specialty yarn and equipment, may constitute a legitimate case for commercial use However, this assessment is highly context-dependent, indicating that the US Olympic Committee's broad assertion that all patterns for sale infringe upon their rights under the ASA or Lanham Act is an exaggeration, especially when considering a more flexible understanding of commercial use in the digital landscape.

The Harder Case: Patterns for Sale with

The sale of patterns that reference the Olympics in their promotion, without using protected marks or words, presents a complex issue For instance, patterns described as inspired by experiences at the Olympic Games or resembling styles worn by Olympic teams blur the lines between project postings and pattern sales This raises the question of whether selling a pattern designed for an Olympic athlete, like a sweater for Bronze Medalist Debi Thomas, is permissible if it does not incorporate any protected terms or symbols.

“USA 2010 hat”) should the posting be deemed improper clear from his statement whether Sandusky appreciated that the scope of the letter included free patterns and postings

172 That is to say, some patterns may be deemed commercial use and others may not, depending on the facts of each situation

The USOC may struggle to prove likelihood of confusion regarding the distribution of "Marcella's pattern for an Olympic scarf" or images of completed projects on Ravelry.com, a craft site that emphasizes sharing creative processes The platform inherently includes the origin of patterns in its sharing context, reducing the chance of confusion unless there is an intent to mislead Even if a pattern title lacks explicit origin (e.g., "Cool pattern for an Olympic scarf"), the creative background is typically disclosed, often clarifying that there is no official affiliation with the USOC.

The ASA's clear language appears to ban this usage While trademark law typically requires proof of confusion to support an infringement claim, the USOC is not obligated to show any degree of confusion—whether it be tendency, likelihood, or actual—under the ASA Therefore, my scarf pattern for sale, which is marketed as

Using the phrase "inspired by Olympic athlete Gabby Douglas" could violate USOC's rights under the ASA, whereas "inspired by super athlete Gabby Douglas" would not This distinction aligns with the protective framework of the ASA While a unique Olympic-themed knitting pattern may appear innocuous, the implications change if a business were to create and sell a clothing line "inspired by Olympic athletes." Such actions could significantly hinder the USOC's ability to earn licensing revenue, reinforcing the notion that decisions would favor the USOC under this strict interpretation.

In the case of American Media, the court examined the publication of a magazine titled "OLYMPICS USA," which included Olympic terminology and imagery This magazine featured layouts detailing Olympic events, athlete descriptions, a broadcast schedule, and paid advertisements The district court utilized the rigorous three-part test for commercial activity established by the Supreme Court in Bolger v Youngs Drug Products Corp., assessing whether the contested speech qualified as an advertisement, referenced a specific product, and met other criteria.

174 Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C § 220506(c)(4) (2006)

176 Id Of course, Gabby Douglas’ agent would undoubtedly object under a host of state laws

177 See 36 U.S.C §§ 220505(c)(3), 22506(b) (“[The USOC has the power to] organize, finance, and control the representation of the United States in the competitions and events of the Olympic Games ” (emphasis added))

178 U.S Olympic Comm v Am Media, Inc., 156 F Supp 2d 1200 at 1203 (D Colo 2001)

180 Bolger v Youngs Drug Prods Corp., 463 U.S 60 (1983) motivated by economic interest 181 Applying the Bolger test, the

American Media court found the USOC objections against the newspaper “meritless,” failing to meet any of the three required elements 182 Importantly, for the purposes of this analysis, the

The American Media court ruled that a profit motive, such as selling more newspapers, does not automatically classify speech as commercial The court compared American Media's actions to those of other publications facing trademark violation accusations, highlighting the similarity between their content—focused on facts about the Olympics and Olympic athletes—and standard reporting found in various media This connection raised free speech concerns, making it more challenging to prove profit motivation Consequently, the use of "Olympic" descriptively in a product name may not inherently indicate infringement, as other factors, including First Amendment rights, could influence the outcome.

The ASA provides stronger protections than the Lanham Act, eliminating the need for the USOC to prove a likelihood of confusion in cases of unauthorized trade use However, First Amendment considerations remain significant for both standards In an age where the internet facilitates widespread self-publication, the case for interpreting the ASA to enhance speech protection becomes increasingly persuasive, as it challenges the traditional boundaries between the press and the general public.

184 This interpretation is consistent with the holding in New Kids on the

In the case of Block v News America Publishing, Inc., the court ruled that a contest allowing fans to vote for their favorite band member via a toll telephone number did not violate the Lanham Act, as there were no false claims of authorship, sponsorship, or endorsement by the band The band's popularity was recognized as a public fact, and although the newspaper profited from this popularity, such actions did not warrant Lanham Act protections The court affirmed that the summary judgment was appropriate for the initial seven causes of action, as they relied on an implied endorsement theory, which was absent in this instance due to the purely nominative nature of the uses involved.

The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, codified at 36 U.S.C § 220506(c) (2006), provides a legal framework for the analysis of hypothetical scenarios, such as the design of a sweater for Olympic Bronze Medalist Debi Thomas This act emphasizes the importance of fact-based reporting in the context of Olympic and amateur sports.

American Media and has the added virtue of expressly denying

The USOC's claims of "authorship, sponsorship, or endorsement" may not be deemed commercial in nature, despite their association with profit motives This perspective introduces uncertainty regarding liability, which contrasts with the implications presented in the USOC letter and existing statutory provisions.

Assessing the USOC’s Assertions of Law on

In conclusion, if this case were to proceed to court, the USOC would likely succeed on some claims, specifically those related to the sale of patterns Informational posts and free pattern-sharing do not infringe under the ASA, regardless of the use of protected words or marks Lawful identical postings of patterns depend on whether the pattern is offered for free or sold Hybrid postings that reference protected words or marks will also be evaluated based on these criteria.

186 Cf Rogers v Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 998 (2d Cir 1989) (upholding summary judgment against plaintiff Ginger Rogers who sought trademark remedies against the makers of the film “Ginger and Fred”)

The First Amendment plays a crucial role in shaping the application of the Lanham Act to artistic titles, which blend artistic expression with commercial promotion Movie titles, for instance, serve as essential components of a filmmaker's expression while also functioning as vital marketing tools This intertwining of artistic and commercial aspects means that filmmakers and authors often employ techniques like word-play and allusion in their titles, enhancing the audience's experience Consumers have a dual interest in these titles: they seek to avoid deception while also appreciating the richness of artistic expression Therefore, the expressive nature of titles warrants greater protection compared to typical commercial product labeling.

The US Olympic Committee (USOC) has taken a broad stance in challenging the use of the term "Olympic" in various patterns and postings, regardless of their commercial intent This approach raises concerns about the extent of its enforcement rights, suggesting that the USOC may be overstepping the limitations set by the Amateur Sports Act (ASA) The implications of this aggressive enforcement strategy are difficult to predict, particularly when it comes to the design and use of protected terms and marks.

The overreach of the cease-and-desist letter can be attributed to a misunderstanding of the distinctions between postings and sales, as well as the complexities of Ravelry.com’s operations The USOC may be attempting to leverage broad interpretations of commercial use under the Lanham Act to strengthen their position under the ASA However, the primary reason for their excessive legal claims appears to be their aggressive business strategy, as the USOC has increasingly asserted rights beyond those legally granted by the ASA in recent years, seeking greater control over their brand.

The US Olympic Committee (USOC) is actively working to safeguard its brand and enhance revenue by addressing legal commercial activities that it believes unjustly undermine the value of its trademarks and words, ultimately impacting its licensing and sponsorship income.

The US Olympic Committee (USOC) is primarily focused on combating ambush marketing, which involves unauthorized associations with the Olympic Movement by non-official sponsors that undermine the value of paid sponsorships A typical example is a competing company to Visa airing commercials featuring past Olympic champions without using official Olympic branding, yet still benefiting from the Olympics' goodwill This concern is shared across the Olympic Movement, as evidenced by the strict measures taken during the 2012 London Olympics, where ticketholders were warned against bringing items with trademarks or promotional messages.

In the case of U.S Olympic Committee v American Media, Inc., various restrictions were imposed to safeguard the interests of official sponsors during the Olympic Games Attendees were banned from posting photos on social media, and local laws prohibited competing advertisements within a designated radius, even on private property Additionally, non-sponsor food brands faced confiscation, highlighting an aggressive approach to protect the Olympic Brand This strategy extends beyond merely preventing unauthorized trademark use, as evidenced by the overreaching cease-and-desist letter from Ravelry.com, reflecting the committee's commitment to maintaining the exclusivity and power of the Olympic brand.

The ASA Applied to Ravelympics

Assessing Whether the Ravelympics

The USOC acknowledged that the term "Ravelympics" is derived from "Ravelry" and "OLYMPICS," indicating it simulates the Olympic mark Because "Ravelympics" is considered a simulation, an additional analysis step is necessary under the ASA to assess potential infringement.

“tending to cause confusion or mistake, to deceive, or to falsely suggest a connection with the corporation or any Olympic Games activity.” 196

191 L ONDON O RGANISING C OMM OF THE O LYMPIC G AMES , L ONDON 2012

T ERMS AND C ONDITIONS OF T ICKET P URCHASE 16 (2012), available at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/entertainment_sports/20 12/10/forum_on_the_entertainmentsportsindustries2012annualmeeting/londo n_2012_ticket_terms_conditions.authcheckdam.pdf

193 Mic Wright, Whatever You Do, Don’t Mention the Olympics!, T HE

K ERNEL (July 16, 2012), http://www.kernelmag.com/comment/column/2823/ whatever-you-do-dont-mention-the-olympics

194 Patrick Collinson, Olympic Prices Are Hard to Swallow, G UARDIAN (May 11, 2012), http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2012/may/11/olympic- food-prices-hard-to-swallow

196 Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C

The USOC’s assertion that the word “Ravelympics” itself

The term "Ravelympics" clearly evokes a connection to the Olympic Movement, as its use and context suggest a deliberate association with the Olympics This term encourages extraordinary efforts and personal achievements, qualities that are synonymous with the Olympic Games Additionally, it establishes a temporal reference by aligning the activity with the Olympic schedule and promotes social engagement through group watching and sharing However, to meet legal requirements, the simulation must also create confusion regarding the relationship between the activity and the actual Olympic Games.

Ravelympics is a unique virtual event distinctly separate from the Olympic Games, designed to encourage participants to complete various craft projects during the Olympics The term "Ravelympics" may seem nonsensical to those unfamiliar with Ravelry.com, where the event's basic rules are outlined This initiative allows users to expand their knitting and crocheting skills while competing for "blog badges" awarded for completing projects in different categories The contrasting nature of a virtual event focused on crafts versus the real-life sports of the Olympics further emphasizes the clarity and uniqueness of Ravelympics.

198 See supra notes 74–78 and accompanying text

200 Ravelympics (and the Ravellenic Games) participants were encouraged to:

Challenge yourself by starting and finishing one or more projects during the 2012 Summer Olympics

What challenge will you take on? Whether it's mastering a new technique, creating your first sweater or pair of socks, tackling a large project, or finally completing that unfinished piece in your closet, the Ravellenics aims to encourage you to broaden your knitting and crocheting skills.

The Ravelympics event emphasizes personal achievement in crafting rather than competition among knitters, indicating no intention to mislead participants about its relationship to the Olympic Games The context clarifies that Ravelympics is distinct from the actual athletic events, with the only connection being the timing of the activities Participants engaged in craft projects separate from the Olympics, using the Games as a backdrop for their projects, which were scheduled to coincide with the opening and closing ceremonies Additionally, group members organized knitting parties to enjoy Olympic events together and shared links to live coverage of the Games.

The USOC's letter highlights the fragile connection between Ravelympics and official Olympic activities, as it criticized the craft events for being frivolous and disrespectful to Olympic athletes The letter argued that Ravelympics undermines the true essence of the Olympic Games and fails to acknowledge the dedication of the athletes While some may disagree with the notion that an "afghan marathon" diminishes the value of Olympic competition, the USOC's strong disapproval makes it clear that Ravelympics, as a craft competition, is unlikely to be mistaken for a legitimate part of the Olympic movement.

Assessing the Ravelympics Nexus with

If the simulation is judged to be confusing or falsely suggests a connection with the Olympic Games, “Ravelympics”

204 See supra notes 66–78 and accompanying text

The determination of unauthorized use is critical, particularly when it aims to trade, sell goods or services, or promote events such as theatrical exhibitions or athletic competitions The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) encounters substantial challenges in this evaluative process.

This analysis arguably requires separate consideration of the use of “Ravelympics” by the user group and the host site 208

The Ravelympics event was designed as a non-commercial initiative, emphasizing participation without any fees or the requirement to purchase patterns or supplies Unlike Camp Olympik, which aimed to generate income through camp fees, Ravelympics focused on community engagement, similar to the protest against the use of Olympic facilities as a prison in Stop the Olympic Prison As a result, the event should be protected from ASA prohibitions related to commercial purposes, as it did not promote trade or the sale of goods or services.

In contrast, the site operators’ use of Ravelympics seems much more closely linked to a trading purpose In 2008 and

2010, Ravelry.com sold enamel pins first marketed as the

The "Ravelympics Badge of Glory," later known as the "2012 Ravellenic Games Badge of Glory," was available for purchase in July and August 2012 Despite the intention to donate profits from these sales to the Special Olympics, the transactions appeared to be primarily commercial in nature.

207 Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C § 220506(c) (2006); see also supra Part III.A

Separate analysis aligns with the treatment of social networks under various regulations, such as the Communications Decency Act, which states that providers or users of interactive computer services are not considered publishers or speakers of information provided by others.

210 Stop the Olympic Prison v U.S Olympic Comm., 489 F Supp 1112,

213 See supra notes 83–87 and accompanying text

214 Id interest in the increased revenues that no doubt flowed from the increased use associated with the event

Before evaluating the sufficiency of the connection between Ravelry.com’s use of “Ravelympics” and trade, it is essential to consider potential defenses against claims that “Ravelympics” creates a confusing simulation The argument that the “2012 Ravelympics Badge of Glory” misuses a simulation could pose significant challenges for the US Olympic Committee (USOC), especially since this pin, featuring a dog and lacking any Olympic branding, is unlikely to be confused with official Olympic merchandise Additionally, buyers are drawn to the badge due to their appreciation of the Ravelympics as a knitting event, further reducing the likelihood of confusion However, if deemed an inappropriate use of a confusing simulation, the sale of the pin could violate the ASA's trade provisions Ravelry.com could remedy this by ceasing the sale or renaming the pin to exclude “Ravelympics,” although this would not address the overall conduct of the Ravelympics group, which may be acceptable in itself.

The event and the sale of the pin could be considered interconnected, as event organizers may have been consulted about the pin's marketing However, even if the pin sales are seen as part of the overall activity, they might be too minor compared to the main focus of the Ravelympics, which is the craft competition, to classify the primary activity as commercial For instance, the Stop the Olympic Prison court determined that the sale of a few posters did not constitute a commercial activity.

The sale of the pin associated with the Ravelympics is incidental and not directly linked to the competition, as it serves a charitable purpose and the quantity produced was significantly lower than the number of participants This incidental nature is further supported by the Committee's focus on the details of the Ravelympics event and their concerns regarding comparisons to the Olympics, only briefly mentioning the pin in their complaints.

Determining whether the use of a simulation for promoting the Ravelympics group event meets the necessary criteria for trade use is challenging The strongest case for improper use arises from the sale of the pin; however, it's important to view this activity separately from the user-group event, as it does not affect the competition Regardless of the analysis approach, any infringement related to the pin's sale could be easily resolved by ceasing its sale or removing "Ravelympics" from the title.

Assessing Ravelympics as an Exhibition, Performance, or Competition

If Ravelympics lacks a substantial trading nexus, can the USOC provide an alternative justification for terminating the event beyond enforcing the removal of patterns and postings that breach the ASA's commercial provisions? This situation presents a narrow chance, particularly if Ravelympics is first recognized as an unauthorized simulation.

The term "Olympic" can misleadingly imply a connection to the Olympic Games, leading to confusion The ASA strictly prohibits the unauthorized use of Olympic marks and terminology for commercial purposes, including their application in promoting theatrical exhibitions, athletic performances, or competitions Ravelympics, for instance, is categorized as a competition that must adhere to these regulations.

216 Stop the Olympic Prison v U.S Olympic Comm., 489 F Supp 1112,

In its cease-and-desist letter, the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) requested two key actions: the renaming of the event and the removal of Olympic symbols from all related patterns and projects.

The USOC may contend that Ravelympics constitutes unauthorized promotion of a competition, as prohibited by the ASA, aligning with the statute's language Notably, courts, including the Supreme Court, have previously overlooked the statute's non-distributive phrasing, interpreting the prohibition as applicable to unauthorized promotions of various competitive events Consequently, the USOC faces the challenge of persuading a court that "Ravelympics" creates confusion or implies a misleading association with the Olympic Games, while also demonstrating that the event qualifies as the type of competition the ASA aims to regulate.

The Ravelympic organizers can navigate ASA prohibitions by removing competitive elements from the event, instead focusing on celebrating individual accomplishments, such as awarding a "blog badge" to everyone who completes a project.

First Amendment Considerations of the

The vulnerabilities of the USOC claims are highlighted by the ease with which event organizers can circumvent the competition prohibitions of the ASA through minor adjustments to event rules Similarly, the hosts of Ravelry.com can evade commercial restrictions simply by renaming the pin In both scenarios, this suggests a significant loophole in the enforcement of these regulations.

221 See S.F Arts & Athletics, Inc v U.S Olympic Comm., 483 U.S 522,

535 (1987) (“Section 110 also allows the USOC to prohibit the use of ‘Olympic’ for promotion of theatrical and athletic events.” (emphasis added)); U.S Olympic Comm v Am Media, Inc., 156 F Supp 2d 1200, 1206 (D Colo

Eliminating the competitive aspect of recognition can be achieved by acknowledging individual achievements through the use of blog badges, rather than restricting recognition to only the top performers.

The court acknowledged that the sale of the pin, referred to as "Ravelympics," could cause confusion regarding its connection to the Olympic Games; however, it concluded that this term was not essential to the event's appeal or the interests of buyers The USOC's strong response seemed aimed at preserving the integrity of the Olympic brand rather than merely protecting its trademarks or preventing public confusion Nonetheless, the authority to safeguard against perceived disrespect is not explicitly granted to the Committee by the ASA, and any overreach in this regard could infringe on non-commercial speech rights The Supreme Court's ruling in San Francisco Arts & Athletics emphasized that commercial speech receives less protection than political speech, indicating that efforts to curb disrespect towards the Olympics might be closely tied to political expression Therefore, website owners could easily avoid potential ASA violations by simply renaming the pin.

The USOC is tasked with upholding the Olympic Movement and its values in the United States, which includes the protection of Olympic trademarks, imagery, and terminology This responsibility is crucial as it reflects respect for the athletes and acknowledges their dedication and hard work Disregarding these elements not only undermines the athletes' efforts but also disrespects the spirit of the Olympic ideals.

225 36 U.S.C §§ 220505–06 (granting powers of enforcement and property rights to “name, seals, emblems, and badges”); see also supra Part III.A

(discussing powers granted by the ASA)

226 See S.F Arts & Athletics, Inc v U.S Olympic Comm., 483 U.S 522,

In the case of 535 (1987), it was established that the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) is not required to demonstrate a likelihood of public confusion regarding unauthorized use to prove a violation of the Amateur Sports Act (ASA), as referenced in Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc v Tourism Co of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S 328, 340 (1986).

The ASA restricts only commercial or promotional speech, while political speech remains protected under the First Amendment.

Mixed messages that propose a commercial transaction while addressing social, political, or public interest issues can be classified as 'commercial speech,' leading to reduced First Amendment protection This classification prompts a more rigorous examination of First Amendment rights according to the Court's analysis.

The First Amendment offers robust protections for political speech, as exemplified in the Supreme Court case Texas v Johnson, which ruled that criticism of the U.S flag, including contemptuous opinions, cannot be punished If an Olympic-themed knitting competition inadvertently undermines the U.S Olympic effort, such commentary could be considered opinion rather than commercial speech, thus warranting greater First Amendment protection Given the quasi-public nature of the Olympics, any disrespectful expression may be viewed as inherently political speech There is no evidence that the Court would grant the Olympic brand more protection than the U.S flag, nor that Congress intended to empower the USOC to shield its brand from public dissent beyond existing commercial protections Furthermore, potential challenges related to state action could complicate the USOC's efforts to limit politically charged speech, possibly leading courts to rule against the USOC in such matters.

228 Texas v Johnson, 491 U.S 397, 401 (1989) (quoting West Virginia Bd of Educ v Barnette, 319 U.S 624 (1943)) (“[T]he right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms ” (quoting Johnson v Texas,

755 S.W.2d 92, 97 (Tex Crim App 1988) (en banc)))

230 Id at 414 (quoting Street v New York, 394 U.S 576, 593 (1969))

To maintain the flag's unique significance, it is essential to engage in persuasive dialogue rather than penalizing those with differing views.

The court in S.F Arts & Athletics, 483 U.S at 536, highlights the ambiguity surrounding whether purely expressive uses are limited by the Amateur Sports Act (ASA) It emphasizes that any limitations on expressive speech under the ASA are merely incidental to Congress's main goal of promoting and supporting the activities of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Additionally, the objections raised against the Ravelympics event primarily stem from concerns that its messaging undermines the integrity of the Olympic movement.

The analysis of the Ravelympics event and the sale of the Ravelympics pin reveals two distinct conclusions regarding unauthorized use under the ASA A review of statutory language and case law indicates that the case for discontinuing the event under its original name is significantly weaker than the case for prohibiting the sale of the Ravelympics pin on the website.

The Case for a Different Legal Framework

The USOC's cease-and-desist letter regarding postings and the Ravelympics reflects an overreach of its legal rights While the USOC is justified in objecting to the sale of patterns that use the term "Olympic" and other protected marks, personal projects and free distribution of Olympic-themed patterns are not prohibited by the ASA The USOC's objections to the Ravelympics event and the sale of its pin raise significant legal concerns This disparity between the USOC's claims and its authority highlights the need for a reevaluation of how to effectively protect the Olympic brand in alignment with modern practices.

The internet plays a crucial role in today's market landscape, particularly through the rise of social networking sites and various platforms that empower individuals to promote and sell their products This shift presents unique challenges for trademark enforcement, as the accessibility of global markets increases significantly For instance, handmade crafts are now widely available on specialized websites like Ravelry.com and eBay.com, highlighting the expansive reach that the internet provides for everyday entrepreneurs.

234 See generally A NNIE L A LBERTSON , T RADEMARKS IN THE S OCIAL

M EDIA A GE (2011), available at http://www.buchalter.com/bt/images/stories/ Attorney_Articles/trademarks_in_the_social_media_age_albertson.pdf

The rise of online marketplaces like Etsy.com and ezcraftshow.com has enabled countless new entrepreneurs to access a global audience, yet many lack the essential skills needed for effective trademark enforcement For instance, selling “Marcella’s pattern for an Olympic Scarf” on Ravelry.com allows sellers to connect with three million users worldwide, but they may not fully grasp the complexities of trademark issues that physical store owners typically navigate The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) is particularly concerned about the challenges of monitoring and controlling trademark infringement in the vast online landscape, recognizing that unchecked violations can have far-reaching, global consequences.

To effectively address this issue, one potential solution is to encourage host sites to enhance user education regarding commercial functionalities Although this approach could potentially engage a significant number of new entrepreneurs, it may prove to be as ineffective as existing methods.

“click-through” of warnings computer users face on a daily basis 240 We could require host sites to actively police content This option would place a significant burden on the hosts, who

235 E B AY , http://www.ebay.com/ (last visited Mar 2, 2013); E TSY , http://www.etsy.com/ (last visited Mar 2, 2013); EZ C RAFT S HOW , http://www.ezcraftshow.com/ (last visited Mar 2, 2013); R AVELRY , supra note

To successfully sell items online, it's essential to understand the intricacies of online selling Prospective sellers are encouraged to participate in community education classes or attend eBay University to gain valuable insights and skills necessary for effective online transactions.

238 Examples of the issues a business person must address include the collection of appropriate taxes and treating the revenue as income

The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) has established a robust and proactive strategy for licensing and enforcing trademark rights related to the Olympic Games This organized approach not only protects these rights but also offers advantages, such as the convenience of remotely identifying and analyzing infringing content from a desk.

In order for online agreements to be enforceable, users must have the opportunity to read the terms, even if they do not actually do so While larger platforms like Facebook have extensive legal teams, smaller sites such as Ravelry.com may lack the resources to consistently monitor content or assess potential infringements Additionally, the interpretation of the ASA complicates matters, as it provides protections and enforcement powers that go beyond standard trademark rights, making it challenging even for experienced lawyers to navigate the unique rights it offers.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not mandate site operators to take proactive measures but requires them to address legitimate copyright claims brought to their attention Placing the responsibility of trademark or copyright protection on site owners raises significant policy concerns Typically, commercial sites respond to complaints by removing the disputed content; however, this may conflict with the interests of those targeted by cease-and-desist letters and the broader public For instance, the Ravelympics organizers, representing social network users, faced a conflict between their expressive interests and the business interests of Ravelry.com, which prioritized compliance with the US Olympic Committee's demands The strong backlash from Ravelympics members against the cease-and-desist letter highlighted their attachment to their expressive content, while Ravelry.com quickly acquiesced to the demands, showcasing the tension between user rights and commercial obligations.

241 Compare Amy Miller, Inside Facebook’s 30-lawyer Legal Department,

In 2011, the Daily Business Review highlighted that having 30 lawyers constitutes a relatively large legal department for a pre-public company Additionally, a review from Ravelry in January 2013 noted the addition of a fifth staff member in 2012, indicating growth within the organization.

242 See S.F Arts & Athletics, Inc v U.S Olympic Comm., 483 U.S 522,

243 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub L 105-304, 112 Stat 2860

(1998) (codified in scattered sections of 17 U.S.C (2006))

The response of Ravelry.com users to the USOC's cease-and-desist letter highlights a significant concern regarding internet platforms' enforcement mechanisms, which can inadvertently stifle legitimate activities and speech This overzealousness from risk-averse web hosts may undermine user interests and chill free expression, ultimately harming the public interest The unique powers granted to the USOC by the ASA allow it to target unauthorized conduct without needing to prove confusion, putting various non-commercial uses at risk of infringement For instance, selling a pattern for an Olympic scarf could be deemed infringing without the typical requirement of demonstrating potential confusion, which may not impact the USOC's commercial interests As the internet evolves towards a more user-friendly model, the USOC may struggle to enforce its rights effectively without also infringing on non-infringing content, complicating the balance between protecting commercial interests and upholding free speech.

“Marcella’s pattern for an Olympic Scarf.”

There is growing debate over whether Congress should repeal the unique privileges granted to the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) that exempt it from standard trademark regulations Additionally, potential legislative changes could tackle issues like "ambush marketing" and strategies for safeguarding the Olympic brand online, particularly on social media platforms, in both commercial and non-commercial settings.

245 See supra text accompanying notes 88, 102

248 See, e.g., Colbrook, supra note 132, at 66–69 (suggesting that enforcement through the Lanham Act could adequately protect the USOC’s interests)

Olympic organizers face challenges in banning the posting of approaches related to the use of Olympic marks and terminology, particularly when these approaches intertwine commercial and political elements However, congressional action on these matters appears improbable, and any attempts to legislate these complex issues are unlikely to yield greater clarity or reduce confusion.

Courts may address questions surrounding cease-and-desist letters, potentially reshaping existing case law and establishing new legal doctrines based on evolving circumstances However, the nature of these letters often discourages judicial review, as businesses assertively interpret the law to protect their trademarks Recipients of such letters frequently feel intimidated and may choose to comply with demands to avoid costly disputes, leading to unchallenged claims and limited judicial oversight As the US Olympic Committee continues to prevail in these matters, it may be tempted to make increasingly aggressive assertions of its rights.

Congress could consider amending the Amateur Sports Act (ASA) to mandate mediation or arbitration for US Olympic Committee (USOC) claims of infringement, creating a more affordable and accessible dispute resolution process This change could encourage individuals to challenge the USOC's claims, fostering a fairer environment Furthermore, increased scrutiny may prompt the USOC to exercise greater caution in its enforcement actions Notably, a USOC representative acknowledged that personal use of Olympic marks is permissible, raising questions about the justification for broader claims, such as those made to Ravelry.com Implementing disincentives for overreaching claims would ultimately serve the public interest, especially regarding the use of Olympic imagery online.

250 See supra notes 6–10 and accompanying text

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) offers a cost-effective and quicker alternative to litigation, but it can still be burdensome for small businesses The Amateur Sports Act (ASA) applies uniformly, penalizing both large-scale infringers, like those selling counterfeit Olympic tickets, and small sellers, such as individuals offering dish towel patterns Although the Committee may recognize minor infringements as harmless, the current framework of the ASA and trademark law compels the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to pursue all instances of infringement To alleviate this, Congress could amend the statute to exclude minor infringements below a specific dollar threshold from requiring USOC authorization, provided there is no confusion regarding sponsorship This change would not hinder the USOC's fundraising efforts, as genuine consumers of Olympic merchandise are unlikely to be misled.

Lessons for Lawyering (or, What Were They Thinking,

Following the significant attention generated by the release of the cease-and-desist letter, the US Olympic Committee (USOC) issued two statements The first emphasized that the letter was a standard legal document aimed at protecting their trademarks, clarifying that there was no intention to personally target knitters or any individuals involved.

Recent statements have indicated that knitters may not be supportive of Team USA, which has sparked significant backlash among Ravelry.com users and attracted further media attention In response to the growing controversy, the US Olympic Committee (USOC) released a follow-up statement addressing the issue.

We sincerely apologize to the Ravelry community for any offense caused by our previous statement While we remain committed to protecting the marks and terms related to the Olympic and Paralympic Movements in the United States, we regret the insensitivity of our language regarding a group that did not intend to disrespect the Olympic Movement We hope you will accept our apology and continue to support the Olympic Games.

A representative from the USOC clarified that the cease-and-desist letter, which was mischaracterized, was drafted by a summer law clerk and contained an erroneous "denigration" statement Although the USOC later acknowledged that the letter may have been overly aggressive, it reaffirmed its commitment to vigorously protect its rights concerning Olympic marks and terminology This situation highlights important lessons about legal practices and the implications of communication in law.

Remember the Limitations of Law Students

“Wow,” said a colleague of mine, “they really threw that law student under the bus!” The face-saving suggestion by the

257 Statement from USOC Spokesperson Patrick Sandusky, supra note

The USOC's claim that the Ravelry.com letter was excessively written by a "summer law clerk" is inadequate, as no law student should issue correspondence on behalf of a client without proper attorney oversight If there was a lack of supervision, the supervising attorney and the general counsel's office should be held accountable for failing to represent the USOC's interests effectively Conversely, if there was supervision, it reflects poorly on the attorney for scapegoating the student and for inadequate legal representation Ultimately, regardless of the circumstances, the letter did not serve the USOC's interests well.

The Cease-and-Desist Letter Was Wrong on the

The article highlights that many claims regarding the distribution of patterns and project postings overlooked the trading purpose outlined in the ASA and the commercial use stipulations of the Lanham Act Furthermore, the assertion that Ravelympics constitutes a simulation, thus making its use prohibited under the Act, fails to consider the crucial aspect of commercial activity, representing an overreach of the USOC's authority under the ASA While aggressive trademark claims in cease-and-desist letters are common, misleading legal statements can result in serious legal repercussions if the matter is taken to court, potentially violating the professional responsibilities of the attorneys involved.

The Cease-and-Desist Letter Was Poorly

The letter effectively outlined the main issue and suggested a clear course of action, demonstrating a well-organized structure and straightforward language However, it exemplifies the criticisms of legal education, as the writer neglected to consider the human element involved and failed to identify the most effective strategies to meet the client's objective of discontinuing the term "Ravelympics."

265 See USOC Notice, supra note 65 and stopping the sale of material using Olympic words and marks

The writer took offense at the comparison between knitting achievements and Olympic athletic skills, which was unnecessary in the context of the infringement dispute This statement alienated a large, passionate community and shifted focus away from the core legal issue of whether "Ravelympics" infringed on the term "Olympic." Many community members, including Ravelympic organizers, indicated they would have considered renaming the event promptly if it weren't for the provocative remarks in the letter.

As a new instructor in legal research and writing, I faced challenges in teaching students the importance of maintaining focus on their arguments for professional effectiveness and client benefit A notable example of the pitfalls of deviating from this principle is the Ravelympics cease-and-desist letter, which illustrates the potential for unintended consequences In contrast, the USOC could learn from more effective approaches, such as the cease-and-desist letter issued by whiskey distributor Jack Daniel’s in the summer of 2012, which went viral for its demonstration of polite and effective advocacy while requesting the author of a book to cease certain actions.

266 See supra note 22 and accompanying text

The organizers took on the responsibility of renaming, encouraging members to propose new names and hosting a special renaming ceremony on their discussion board Kimberli mentioned that an impromptu ceremony would take place later that evening to bid farewell to the beloved name, "Thou Name That Shalt Not Be."

Uttered From Now On and welcome our new name in true awesome Ravelry fashion–Watch for it!”)

The approval of the letter by the law student's supervisor raises concerns about the inadequacy of skills training, indicating that mere placement with legal professionals is insufficient to address these gaps.

Jack Daniel's issued a cease-and-desist letter to an author for using elements of its label in the book cover design, expressing appreciation for the author's admiration for the brand The company emphasized the importance of protecting its trademarks and offered to assist with the costs of a new cover design This approach not only fostered goodwill towards Jack Daniel's but also resulted in a revised book cover While the original cover remains accessible online, particularly on Amazon, it is now associated with the positive sentiment generated by the company's letter.

The USOC's more confrontational stance contrasts sharply with the conciliatory tone of the Jack Daniel’s letter, highlighting an important lesson in legal writing: always draft communications with the awareness that they may be shared online This is particularly crucial for letters directed at online communities, as the potential for distortion increases once your message is amplified on the web Therefore, it is essential to exercise caution in your written communications.

Don’t Forget to Think About Other Options

Conclusion

The internet serves as a creative platform that poses significant challenges for businesses aiming to safeguard their associated words and marks The efforts of the US Olympic Committee (USOC) to protect statutory rights under the Amateur Sports Act (ASA) highlight the necessity for innovative approaches to the legal framework To effectively uphold trademark rights in the digital age, businesses must adopt creative legal and business strategies.

275 Statement from USOC Spokesperson Patrick Sandusky, supra note