Seattle Trademark Lawyer

A reporter recently asked me how often the United States Olympic Committee has sued the owner of an “Olympic”-named business in Washington. The answer? In the Western District of Washington, where I would expect such a suit to be brought: never. At least not since 1991, according to the federal courts’ U.S. Party/Case Index, which I checked out this afternoon.

Turns out as heavy-handed as the USOC seems to be lately in this state full of businesses named “Olympic” in honor of our Olympic Mountains, the USOC has taken a light touch when it comes to filing suit.

The same appears true around the country. Since 1991, it looks like the USOC has brought only 25 lawsuits identified by PACER as being “trademark” lawsuits, with only six suit against defendants with “Olympic” in their name. These include:

• USOC v. Olympic Spa Covers Inc., No. 04-01096 (C.D. Calif);
• USOC v. Olympic Carrier Corp., No. 02-00880 (N.D. Georgia);
• USOC v. Olympic Protective Services, Inc., No. 01-01002 (N.D. Calif.);
• USOC v. Bouzounis, d/b/a Olympic Incentive Ideas Inc., No. 91-00526 (S.D. Ohio);
• USOC v. Olympic Diamond Corp., No. 91-00532 (E.D.N.Y); and
• USOC v. Galaxy Cafe, d/b/a Olympic Cafe, No. 93-00288 (S.D. Georgia).

Of the six suits the USOC has brought, five were voluntarily dismissed after less than one year. None went to trial. Only one resulted in a judgment, and a consent judgment at that, with the owners of the Galaxy Cafe agreeing to pay the USOC $3,100 in attorney’s fees. The terms or amount of the USOC’s judgment in that case were not immediately available online.

I’m not a fan of the USOC. It has come across in Washington in recent months as a trademark bully. But this record shows the USOC either is all-bark and no-bite, or it is a lot more selective in the trade name cases it chooses to prosecute in court than it would first seem.