« Ninth Circuit Affirms Judgment Sanction and $1M Award Against Counterfeiter | Main | A First for STL: A Trademark Tax Case »

Olympic Lawsuit Statistics, Domain Name Dispute Over Chicago2016.com

Last week a reader asked if the U.S. Olympic Committee has filed the same number of trademark lawsuits in recent years that it has filed in the past. Interesting question. The federal courts’ PACER database only goes back to 1988 (as best I can tell). During that period, the USOC has filed 39 lawsuits. Its busiest year was 2002 (Winter Games in Salt Lake City) with seven suits, followed by five in 2000 (Summer Games in Sydney), and four in 1994 (Winter Games in Lillehammer). Here’s the breakdown:

1988 - 1          1989 - 0          1990 - 2          1991 - 0          1992 - 0

1993 - 0          1994 - 4          1995 - 3          1996 - 3          1997 - 0

1998 - 0          1999 - 1          2000 - 5          2001 - 3          2002 - 7

2003 - 2          2004 - 1          2005 - 1          2006 - 0          2007 - 3

2008 - 0          2009 - 3  

So, there hasn’t been a big spike in USOC trademark lawsuits in the last few years.

On another Olympic note, the USOC is the defendant in a suit filed last year in the Northern District of Illinois, Frayne v. USOC, No. 08-5290. In it, Stephen Frayne, Jr., owner of www.Chicago2016.com, seeks a declaratory judgment that registration of his domain name does not violate the Lanham Act or the Ted Stevens Act. His Web site states: “This is NOT the official Chicago 2016 Olympic Bid Committee site” and instead is a forum for “analysis by professional economists on the topic of hosting the Olympics.” The USOC, for its part, has asserted counterclaims for trademark infringement, cybersqutting, and violation of the Ted Stevens Act. (The USOC’s Chicago bid Web site is www.Chicago2016.org.) The USOC has moved for summary judgment, which is pending before the court.

Posted on September 28, 2009 by Registered CommenterMichael Atkins in , | Comments7 Comments | References1 Reference

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    Response: IP News Shorts
    at Chicago IP Litigation Blog on October 9, 2009
    Here are several stories that I have been wanting to blog about, but have not been able to get to because of the new Local Patent Rules, my webinar on reducing IP litigation costs (I was glad to see that so many of you attended and found the presentation valuable) and ...

Reader Comments (7)

Thank you for the analysis Michael. I believe my case is an important one in the battle to uphold private property rights and first amendment rights as well as maintaining the Supreme Court's limited view of the protected terms of the Ted Steven's Act.

Steve
408.431.5654
September 29, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterSteve Frayne Jr.
I must say that this Steve Frayne is pretty creative in trying to make money on capturing the internet domain. If he's intention was not to sell the internet domain, why did he register over 40 other www.(city)2016.com, including Tokyo2016.com, which also lost the bid for the Olympics?

Now that Rio is the site of the 2016 Olympics, Steve lost out on his scheme and lost pretty big buy-out offers by the committees prior to the decision. Tough break.
October 2, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterLoL
Mr. Frayne wrote:

"I believe my case is an important one in the battle to uphold private property rights and first amendment rights"

I'm just not seeing it.
October 4, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterMarc J. Randazza
I would like to read an update from Michael or Steve as to the status of the suit, now that the games went to Rio, and also confirmation from Steve of the alleged "buy-out" offers from the IOC referrred to in a comment above.
October 5, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterZak Muscovitch
Here are further details on the case:

http://www.finnegan.com/files/upload/Incontestable_Feb09_3.html

There is actually a Wikipedia article about the Chicago 2016 bid, if you believe Wikipedia is a reputable source (debatable, but they are quite accurate).

Here's the scoop: The International Olympic Committee made the decision to have Rio be the site for 2016 at 1:00pm Eastern US time on Friday Oct.2, 2009. Chicago had been voted out hours earlier in the first round. Chicago2016.com website did not mention any of this until 3 days later. Seems to be Mr. Frayne must be drinking himself sick out of disappointment for not taking the buy-out offers. Now, his site and Tokyo2016.com which he also claimed are worthless.

Also, Chicago2016.com bans your IP address if you find it confusing that his site isn't owned by the Olympic Committee. Not really balanced discussion as he claims.

I've been very interested in this case and have been following closely. I definitely would like to see what happens now and what Frayne's options are and if the Chicago Olympic Committe will continue their case until Frayne just caves.
October 5, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterLoL
Hi Micheal,

I'm thinking about starting a non-profit that focuses on raising money for charity through sports. The word "Olympic" arises in the many derivations of potential titles for the organization. As the non-profit would be a 501(C)3, would the word Olympic be considered non-commercial use and thus not infringe on the IOC's trademark? Thanks for your insight

vik
November 9, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterVik
Vik,

I can't give you specific legal advice. But you can see how aggressive the IOC has been. An organization's nonprofit status also does not mean it's not "commercial" for trademark purposes. For instance, I'd be shocked if the "Gay Olympics" folks didn't operate as a nonprofit, and the IOC came after them with guns blazing.
November 9, 2009 | Registered CommenterMichael Atkins

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.