How exactly does 36 U.S. Code § 220506 apply in USOPC vs Prime Hydration?

Question

In paragraph/section 10 (as listed in the PDF of the lawsuit I found here) it states Congress gave the USOPC exclusive rights to a number of things in regards to commercially exploiting the Olympic Movement. These apparently the 5 rings symbol, the word Olympic, and "any trademark, ...". For reference, the target of the lawsuit seems to be this part of the packaging which states:

3x Olympic Gold Medalist And Counting...
What makes a true Olympian repping Team USA? A 3-Point wizard. A master of the mid-range. Skill determination, heart — the are the marks of his game. Bottles up, fam, because when KD steps on the court, he's going for gold.

The first point seems fairly clear and seems to come from (a)(2) of the U.S. Code. The second point seems to come from (a)(4) of the U.S. Code, but in section (c)(3) which outlines "Civil action for unauthorized use", it states:

the words described in subsection (a)(4) of this section, or any combination or simulation of those words tending to cause confusion or mistake, to deceive, or to falsely suggest a connection with the corporation or any Olympic, Paralympic, Pan-American, or Parapan American Games activity; or

I am unsure if this means that any use of the words listed in (a)(4) cannot be used at all (of which "Olympic" is listed), or if it means they cannot be used if they falsely suggest a connection to USOPC or an Olympic activity.

The third point which seems to come from (c)(4) where it talks about "any trademark" among other things. In the lawsuit (pages 5-7) they list multiple trademarks they (USOPC) own, including "TEAM USA", "GOING FOR THE GOLD", and "OLYMPIC", but at least according to the description provided with each, none of these trademarks specifically apply to bottled energy/sports/hydration drinks.

---

So, my question mainly revolves around how exactly 36 U.S. Code § 220506 (c) applies to this lawsuit. Does it prohibit the use of the word "Olympic" in its entirety when used in the purpose of inducing the sale of a good, or only when it causes confusion or falsely suggests a connection with USOPC. Additionally, does (c)(4) prohibit the use of any trademarked term/phrase in the use of selling goods, regardless of whether the trademark specifically applies to that category of goods?

Answer 1

36 U.S. Code § 220506 - Exclusive right to name, seals, emblems, and badges

That section of the USC is part of Trademark Law. First of all, (d) (3) (A) is very relevant, as it directly calls our why (c) is relevant:

(d) Pre-Existing and Geographic Reference Rights.—

(3) Use of the word “Olympic” to identify a business or goods or services is permitted by this section where—

(A) such use is not combined with any of the intellectual properties referenced in subsection (a) or (c) of this section;

Now, you may explicitly not do any type (c) stuff, in particular (c) (4):

(c)Civil Action for Unauthorized Use.—Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the corporation may file a civil action against a person for the remedies provided in the Act of July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) (popularly known as the Trademark Act of 1946) if the person, without the consent of the corporation, uses for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competition—

(4) any trademark, trade name, sign, symbol, or insignia falsely representing association with, or authorization by, the International Olympic Committee, the International Paralympic Committee, the Pan-American Sports Organization, or the corporation.

Meaning

You can not use any of the marks registered by the USOPC without the consent of the USOPC in commerce. They have registered (and were granted under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act), among others, Olympic, Olympian, Team USA, Going for Gold.

Sports drinks are in the same class as soft drinks, so Coca-Cola and Prime are in the same class of products. And guess who of the two shells millions for a license to use the various marks until 2032? Right, Coca-Cola Co., continuously since 1928, and it's an exclusive license: you can only buy Coca-Cola soft drinks in places where the Olympic Games are held.

Using any of those marks in packaging or advertisement implies that the company does sponsor the Olympics by paying USOPC or IOC for a license. Coca-Cola is allowed, they pay for it, and it's a contract worth allegedly billions.

PepsiCo and Prime Hydration Are not licensed to do that, they don't pay the USOPC or IOC. The former of the two is just making general sports ads without mentioning the Olympics, which is fine. The latter puts the trademarks on their packaging. But Prime Hydration's maker company does not have such a sponsorship/licensing deal with USOPC or the IOC. Paying a single sportsperson does not make you a USOPC/IOC sponsor and does not grant the right to use the marks.

And now the kicker: USOPC has to sue, or risk losing the trademark.

If you want a more in-depth dissection, you might listen to America's Attorney tear into the Lawsuit, explaining the general layout of the problem.

Also, you might be interested in the 2021 USPTO 'Fireplace Chat' about the Trademarks surrounding the Olympic Games. This one hour had the head of the USPTO and USOPC giving a quite wide overview about the general rights. Do know, that USOPC finances mostly from the trademark licenses.