From finish lines to fine lines: Legal battles in the wake of the Olympics

IP and sponsorship issues

We kick off with an analysis of IP and sponsorship issues that have emerged from the Olympics, including ambush marketing from Prime Hydration (Prime), IP issues surrounding tattoos of the Olympic rings and domain name disputes.

The Olympics is a global sporting phenomenon watched by billions of people worldwide. Advertising and branding associated with the Olympics is considerably lucrative and as such requires significant protection. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) delegates authority to national Olympic committees like the US Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) to protect Olympic IP.

United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee v. Prime Hydration, LLC

Facts

USOPC swiftly commenced a lawsuit against Prime, a beverage company founded by social media influencers Logan Paul and KSI. This was due to their promotion of an Olympic-themed drink in collaboration with US Olympic basketball player, Kevin Durant. The complaint was that Prime used unlicensed Olympic IP, including the terms 'Olympic', 'Olympian', 'Kevin Durant Olympic Prime Drink', 'Team USA', and 'Going For Gold' on its packaging, website and social media platforms.

Dispute

Even before the starting gun had been fired, on 10 July 2024, USOPC sent a letter to Prime, claiming that it unfairly exploited the goodwill generated by the Olympics to the detriment of official sponsors, such as Coca-Cola, thereby causing millions of dollars in damages. However, Prime ignored the letter and continued with its unauthorised use of Olympic IP.

Nine days later, USOPC returned to the blocks and filed a civil action in the United States District Court for The District of Colorado using the powers granted by The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C. § 220506 (Ted Stevens Act). USOPC’s complaint asserted violations of the Ted Stevens Act, trademark infringement, unfair competition and dilution arising under the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. § 1114, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, and Colorado common law. They claimed that Prime used Olympic IP without consent "in a deliberate and willful attempt to trade on USOPC intellectual property … thereby falsely representing association with or authorization by the USOPC, the IOC, and/or the Olympic Games… [which] is likely to cause confusion, mistake, and deception among consumers".

Outcome

Faced with strong and swift action by the USOPC, Prime subsequently removed the Olympic-themed beverage from their website and social media. This case demonstrates the strong protection afforded to Olympic IP and the rights of official sponsors to be exclusively associated with Olympic events, together with the effectiveness of national Olympic committees in protecting and enforcing those rights.

International Olympic Committee v Domain Admin, TicketMarket, FZCO (IOC domain name dispute)

Facts

With the beginning of the Olympics marked by the opening ceremony on 26 July 2024, legal battles off the field also kicked off. On this day, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) issued a decision that the domain 'paris24tickets.com' belonged to the IOC, transferring it from a UAE-based registrant.

IOC is the owner of numerous words and trade marks for 'PARIS 2024', registered in 2016, 2018 and 2019.  

Domain Admin, TicketMarket, FZCO (the Respondent) registered the disputed domain name ('paris24tickets.com') on 12 March 2024. The website stated that “Paris24 is the only marketplace offering tickets from an authorized reseller". PARIS 2024 and THE OLYMPICS designations were used on the website, as well as the use of photographs from previous Olympics.

Dispute

On 23 May 2024, IOC issued a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, but no response was received. The IOC then invoked the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), a quasi-legal administrative procedure for resolving domain name disputes. The Respondent was based in the UAE and was unrepresented.

The IOC was required to prove that three elements were met:

1. that the domain name is confusingly similar to its trade mark;
2. that the Respondent lacked rights to register the domain; and
3. that it was registered in bad faith.

The Respondent failed to file a response and therefore lost its ability to rebut the claims.

Outcome

On the first requirement, the Panel held that the PARIS 2024 trade mark is easily recognisable, and the term “Paris24” was deemed to be very similar to PARIS 2024.

On the second requirement, IOC established that the Respondent lacked the rights and legitimate interest in the domain, as its was not affiliated with IOC and had no licence or authorisation to use the mark. Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence indicating its legitimate interest, which the Respondent failed to procure.

On the third requirement, the Panel also held that the Respondent used the domain name intentionally to attempt to attract users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the PARIS 2024 trade mark, and therefore constituted bad faith.

Final score: 3-0 to IOC. All three elements were proven, which resulted in the domain name being transferred to the IOC.

Tattooed Olympic rings

Following the closing of the Olympics, further issues were seen in the Paralympic Games. Unlike the Olympics, the Paralympics are managed by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC). Athletes were previously required to cover any tattoos of the Olympic rings or face disqualification, due to the risk of confusion and "body advertising". British Paralympian swimmer Josef Craig was penalised in the 2016 Rio Olympics for not covering his tattoos.

Ordinarily, trade marks confer rights on their owners to prohibit the use of an identical sign, or a similar sign if this would give rise to a "likelihood of confusion". The use of a trade mark in the context of Olympic tattoos raises complexities, such as whether tattoos drawn on an athlete's body can be considered a "brand" and whether athletes can be likened to a "product".

On 23 August 2024, no doubt in anticipation of similar disputes, the IPC announced its decision to abandon the rule that prevented athletes from showing their tattoos of the Olympic rings. This case demonstrates the complexities of enforcing IP in a sporting context, and the different approaches taken by the different Olympic committees.

On the basis of these disputes, the Paris Olympics has yet again reinforced the strength and speed with which the Olympic and Paralympic Committees will enforce the IP rights associated with their respective Games. However, it also shows a pragmatism.  In circumstances in which the commercial value of that IP is not threatened, such as with regard to the Olympics tattoos, the Olympics/Paralympics Committees appear inclined to let the game play on.

Qualification and selection

The Olympics is a once-in-a lifetime opportunity for athletes to compete globally. It is the peak of an athlete's career requiring significant effort and dedication. However, rule 44.3 of the Olympic Charter indicates that "nobody is entitled to any right of any kind to participate in the Olympic Games". Athletes have to meet a number of criteria in order to participate in the Olympics. As such, numerous disputes regarding qualification and selection have arisen.

The Olympics can be a life-changing springboard which can eject an athlete to commercial heights through sponsorship deals, media appearances and so on. It is therefore unsurprising that athletes often dispute their qualification for the Olympics, and Paris was no different.

Cook Islands Aquatics Federation (CIAF) and Cook Islands Sports and National Olympic Committee (CISNOC) v. World Aquatics

Facts

Wesley Tikiairki Roberts represented the Cook Islands, swimming at the 2016 and 2020 Olympics. Ordinarily, the IOC allows athletes from underrepresented countries to participate in the Olympics through Universality Places, provided that the relevant applications are submitted to World Aquatics by 24 June 2024. On 05 May 2024, World Aquatics notified CIAF and CISNOC that Roberts was not eligible to participate in the Olympics, as he had participated in the previous two Olympics, contrary to rule D.3 of the Qualification System (which provides "athletes entering through Universality are limited to a maximum of up to two Olympic Games in their career or not being older that the age of thirty (30) years as of 1^st January 2025”).This meant he did not meet the Universality Placing criteria.

Appeal

Following numerous failed counter-attack attempts, CIAF and CISNOC filed an application with the CAS Ad Hoc Division on 21 July 2024. They claimed that:

1. based on C.2 and D.3 of the Qualification System Rules (which are essentially identical), there were two alternative methods of qualification for a Universality Place; that is, as long as an athlete: (a) has not competed in more than one Olympics, or (b) is no more than 30 years old on 01 January 2025, they would be eligible for a Universality Place. As Roberts will be under 30 years old on 1 January 2025, he was eligible for Universality Placement, despite his participation in two prior Olympics;
2. any ambiguity in articles C.2 or D.3 should be interpreted against World Aquatics; and
3. if Roberts' qualification was unsuccessful, there would be no Universality athlete in a swimming event from the Cook Islands, which contradicted the IOC Qualification System Principles.

Outcome

The Panel rejected CIAF and CISNOC's application and upheld World Aquatics’ interpretation of the qualification standards because they were expressly ‘limiting’ standards rather than qualification standards. The correct interpretation of the rule is that an athlete cannot qualify for Universality Placing if they had competed in more than one Olympics ‘or’ are more than 30 years old on 01 January 2025.

Further, the fact that there would be no male swimmer from the Cook Islands was not the fault of World Aquatics, but was rather self-inflicted.

Consequently, Roberts was unable to make a splash at the Olympics.

Livia Avancini v. World Athletics, Max Batista v. World Athletics, Hygor Bezerra v. World Athletics

Brazil initiated various proceedings against World Athletics' Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU). This consolidated case concerned eligibility disputes involving three Brazilian athletes, Lívia Avancini (shot put), Max Batista (race walker) and Hygor Bezerra (sprinter) (the Athletes).

Facts

The AIU declared that the Athletes were ineligible to compete at the Olympics because they failed to meet anti-doping requirements which required at least three no notice out-of-competition tests (urine and blood). Brazil's government agency (Autoridade Brasileira de Controle de Dopagem (ABCD)) tested athletes on its understanding that at least three tests of both blood and urine had to be taken, amounting to six tests for each athlete. Despite conducting 470 tests, the ABCD fell short of meeting the required number of tests for these three Athletes.

The Brazilian Athletics Federation applied for an exception to the testing requirements due to 'exceptional circumstances'. World Athletics however rejected the application on the basis that there were no truly exceptional circumstances.

Appeal

The Athletes got back on their feet and challenged the decision to the CAS Ad Hoc Division Panel on the following grounds:

1. the wording of the requirements was reasonably construed by ABCD and as such, imposed significant pressure on its resources;
2. ABCD could not obtain further funding to undertake the tests as the budget for the tests was set by the Brazilian government before the requirements were set; and
3. there was no suggestion the Athletes were not ‘clean’.

Outcome

The CAS Ad Hoc Division Panel accepted that ABCD's interpretation of the requirements was reasonable, and was the primary reason for the insufficient testing of the Athletes. They recognised that substantial efforts were made to conduct the tests within the budget during the short period available. The Panel accepted that truly exceptional circumstances existed in this case due to ABCD's reasonable interpretation and the lack of timing and resources.

CAS case law makes it clear that CAS rarely interferes with the discretion of sport governing bodies. However, this case concerned a determination of the construction of the rules, rather than a review of how ABCD exercised their discretion.

The Athletes' application was upheld, allowing them to participate in the Olympics.

Jitka Čábelická v. Czech Cycling Federation & Czech Olympic Committee

Facts

Jitka Cabelicka, a mountain bike cyclist from the Czech Republic, aimed to pedal her way to Olympic glory through the nomination criteria set forth by the Czech Cycling Federation (CCF). These criteria hinged on her performance in the World Cup, European Championship, and the Czech Cup. Unfortunately, during the Czech Cup in June 2024, Cabelicka faced technical difficulties and was unable to finish, leading to her exclusion from the CCF’s selection roster.

Appeal

On 10 June 2024, Cabelicka made a request to the Czech Olympic Committee (COC) Ombudsman to investigate CCF’s adherence to its own selection criteria. However, the COC rejected the request, stating that CCF's decision is final. On 23 July 2024, Cabelicka filed an application with the CAS Ad Hoc Division, claiming that:

1. there was not adequate objectivity to the nomination process and the selection committee was biased;
2. Cabelicka's preparation was predicated on the nomination criteria published on 01 November 2023, which she had previously met;
3. the modification to the nomination criteria was unjustified, irrational and violated the principle of legal certainty as it placed performance in a single low-ranked event above long-term performance; and
4. the assessment of Cabelicka's performance against the criteria was incorrect.

Outcome

The Panel pointed to CAS case law which indicates that significant discretion is granted to national federations in making Olympic selections, meaning that criteria established by national federations must be complied with and cannot be contested. They noted that while this discretion is extensive, it carries a legal obligation to avoid arbitrary, unfair, or unreasonable practices in applying objective selection criteria.

Having considered the nomination criteria, the Panel held that it had not been amended in an unfair or biased way. There was also no bad faith on CCF's part. Therefore, Cabelicka's application was rejected, and she was not able to participate in the Olympics.

It seems then the common thread of these cases is that great emphasis is placed on adherence to established criteria, which are not departed from except only in 'truly exceptional circumstances', as seen with the Brazilian Athletes.

Field of play disputes

Umpires and officials play a crucial role in enforcing the rules of the game and determining outcomes. Field of play decisions, such as calls on when fouls are committed, are generally not reviewable unless decisions are fraudulent, biased or made in bad faith.

Italian Swimming Federation v. World Aquatics

Facts

On 07 August 2024, Italy and Hungary played in the men’s water polo quarter final. In the dying seconds, Italy appeared to score a game-winning goal, only for the referee to blow the whistle on what turned out to be a controversial call. Upon video review, the goal was disallowed due to an Italian player striking a Hungarian opponent in the face, which was classified as a ‘violent action’ under Part Six, Article 9.14 of the World Aquatics Competition Regulations (Regulations). Hungary ultimately swam away with the victory.

Italy filed a protest, claiming the alleged 'violent action' was an accident. However, the referees rejected the appeal.

Appeals

Italy subsequently appealed the decision to the World Aquatics Jury of Appeal under Part One, Article 13.2 of the Regulations. However, the appeal was denied as it did not deem the referees' decision as arbitrary. On 09 August 2024, the Italian Swimming Federation (ISF) filed an application with the CAS Ad Hoc Division, claiming that:

1. the referees’ decision was arbitrary, irrational and abusive, especially given how the player was not given further penalties and exclusions; and
2. the sanction against the player should be cancelled, with the final moments of the game to be replayed.

Outcome

The Panel rejected ISF's claims, upholding the stringent field of play doctrine which allows for appeals only in 'limited circumstances'. It pointed to previous CAS cases to reinforce the doctrine that a referee’s decision cannot be reviewed on appeal without proof of bias, malice, bad faith, arbitrariness or legal error. As it stated, "mere error is not automatically arbitrary, irrational or made in an abuse of discretion." As there was no evidence of the foregoing, the appeal failed.

Jordan Chiles' case

On 05 August 2024, the women’s floor exercise final turned into a legal balancing act as judges grappled with a dispute involving two Romanian gymnasts, Ana Maria Barbosu and Sabrina Malenca-Voinea, and Jordan Chiles from the USA.

Facts

Both Barbosu and Malenca-Voinea scored 13.700, but Malenca-Voinea faced a 0.1 penalty for stepping outside the boundary during her routine. Chiles, initially awarded 13.666—comprising a difficulty score of 5.8 and an execution score of 7.866—sought to flip the script. Article 8.5 of FIG Technical Regulations 2024 allows inquiries to be lodged within one minute of the scores being  displayed. Chiles’ coach submitted an inquiry for re-assessment of the difficulty score to the Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG), which was subsequently adjusted to 5.90, boosting Chiles’ total to 13.766 and securing her a bronze medal over the Romanian athletes.

Appeal

On 6 August 2024 the Romanian Gymnastics Federation filed a claim in the CAS Ad Hoc Division, arguing that:

1. Chiles’ inquiry should be dismissed as it was submitted four seconds past the one-minute deadline;
2. the inquiry was made in bad faith by FIG as it did not properly consult video footage and completed the review in just 15 seconds; and
3. the 0.1 penalty given to Malenca-Voinea should be rescinded as she did not step outside the boundary.

Outcome

FIG contended that the regulations allowed for some leeway, but the Panel firmly rejected this notion. It emphasised that the one-minute deadline was clear, fixed, unambiguous and offered no flexibility—‘one minute’ under Article 8.5 meant exactly that. The rule explicitly states that “late verbal inquiries will be rejected,” highlighting the mandatory nature of compliance.

FIG also asserted, with the support of USA Gymnastics, that the challenge to Chiles' inquiry should fail because the judges' decision on the difficulty score was covered by the field of play doctrine, meaning that the decision cannot be overturned by the Panel in the absence of bad faith or fraud. The Panel also rejected this argument, claiming that the field of play doctrine did not apply here because they were not reviewing a judgment call by a referee during the competition. Regardless, no sufficient evidence of bad faith was presented by the applicants.

The Panel held that Chiles' inquiry should not have occurred because it was lodged outside the permitted time. They also rejected a subsequent attempt by USA Gymnastics on 12 August 2024 to overturn this decision based on new video evidence, stating that arbitral awards cannot be reconsidered regardless of fresh evidence.

Further, the Panel refused to review the 0.1 penalty imposed on Malenca-Voinea as this was covered by the field of play doctrine and so could not be challenged. Barbosu was therefore awarded the bronze medal in place of Chiles.

Benjamin Savšek & OCSASF v. International Canoe Federation

Facts

On 29 July 2024, Benjamin Savšek took to the waters in the Men’s Canoe final. Unfortunately, he collided with a post, leading to a penalty. The chief judge—who serves as the ultimate authority on all judging matters under the ICF Canoe Slalom Competition Rules—to impose a hefty 50-second penalty. This decision relegated Savšek to 11th place, rather than the podium finish he had hoped for.

Appeal

On 9 August 2024, Savšek and the Olympic Committee of Slovenia Association of Sports Federations (OCSASF) submitted an application with the CAS Ad hoc Division, claiming that:

1. the chief judge erroneously amended the 2-second penalty to a 50-second penalty with no official explanation;
2. Savšek should have been given the benefit of the doubt as to whether he hit the post;
3. the fact that the chief judge has unconstrained powers and the procedure by which the appealed decision was rendered was arbitrary as it had been made without providing an explanation or reason;
4. the application falls under the exception to the field of play doctrine as it involves the interpretation of the competition rules by the chief judge against the measures of fairness and non-arbitrariness, which violates the spirit of Olympism and the fundamental principles of the Olympic Charter; and
5. there was no explanation or official report for the penalty which curtailed the right of Savšek to potentially challenge the decision and the right to be informed of the reasons for the penalty.

Outcome

The Panel upheld the field of play doctrine, highlighting its limited powers to review on-field decisions - "decision[s] made on the playing field by judges, referees, umpires and other officials, who are responsible for applying the rules of a particular game… should not be reviewed by the Panel".

It also pointed to CAS jurisprudence which sets a high burden of proof, indicating that in order to be successful, a party must "substantiate its allegations with convincing evidence”. Savšek and OCSASF failed to discharge the burden of proof that the chief judge violated the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness. Further, the chief judge's lack of explanation for the penalty was consistent with rules and regulations. The application was therefore unsuccessful, and the 50-second penalty was upheld.

These three cases demonstrate the strict adherence to the field of play doctrine. Judges' decisions are rarely overturned by CAS. A high burden of proof must be met to depart from this established doctrine.

Conclusion

As evidenced by these cases, there is a rigorous commitment to the rules of the game and avenues for review and appeal are narrow. Out of the nine cases examined in this article, only two managed to flip the scoreboard, serving as a reminder of the legal hurdles faced by those seeking to challenge the Olympic bodies. These decisions also add to a growing body of jurisprudence which underlines the key themes: (1) the Olympics will robustly enforce its IP rights; (2) adherence to selection criteria will be upheld unless exceptional circumstances require flexibility, and (3) athletes and sporting federations face a very high threshold to overturn field of play decisions.

For more information, please contact a member of our sports practice – Neil Blake (Partner), Mike McClure KC (Partner), Jake Savile-Tucker (Senior Associate), Victoria Horsey (Senior Associate, IP), Bilal Ahmadzai (Associate) or your usual HSF contact.