London (Censored) Officials Want (Censored) Sponsors To Get Special Protection

from the can-we-say-that? dept

While Major League Baseball’s views on what it owns are pretty misguided, it’s got a long way to go to reach the levels of the Olympics. The International Olympic Committee and its affiliated groups have a long history of overzealously “defending” its trademarks and “protecting” its sponsors, whether it’s by muzzling athletes writing about the games on their personal sites, suing just about anybody that uses the word Olympics, preventing people from wearing clothes with the logos of sponsors’ rivals to Olympic events or having moronic link policies. In the UK, organizers of the 2012 summer games are trying to get special protection for their trademarks and sponsors enshrined in law, an effort that’s now coming under attack (registration required). The bill would not only offer special legal protection to official Olympic sponsors, but would also allow the games’ organizers to dictate what media outlets could cover the games, and exactly what they could write about. It also includes a provision that allows the UK’s secretary of state to regulate advertising in the vicinity of Olympic venues and traffic routes to them — all part of the “protection” supporters say Olympic sponsors deserve. What remains unclear is why, exactly, two groups engaged in a private business transaction — in this case, the Olympic committee and its sponsors — not only deserve an unbelievable amount of specially enshrined legal protection when trademark laws are already on the books, but should also get to stifle freedom of the press. Citius, altius, fortius… and maximus cashius.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “London (Censored) Officials Want (Censored) Sponsors To Get Special Protection”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
The Poison Pen / A Funny Guy says:

How long will we tolerate this type of BS?

Well I look at it like this.

Super Bowl!


There I said both of them. And as long as there is a 1st admendment in the USA I will continue to use these words as I see fit…..

BTW – anybody that wants to sue me….. BE MY FUCKING GUEST.

I won’t even bother bringing a laywer to court… that is if i even show up to refute such an obvious attack against the freedom of speech.

Please sue me… please please please!!!!!!

Waste your money….. you won’t get a dime from me… I’ll die before you get a dime from me…

Seriously folks…. just what could any POS do with 50 million people with this attitude?

Answer – NOTHING!

Awaken my brothers and take back the rights that are being taken from you one by one.

Awaken before it is too late……

Anonymous Nerd says:

Re: How long will we tolerate this type of BS?

Ahh, but you’re missing the obvious point. Why WOULD the NFL or the Olympic committee sue you? That’s a big fat waste of their legal dollars. You’re just a ranting cry-baby to them.

But when Clear Channel, ABC, CBS, or NBC decide to use “Super Bowl” and “The Olympics” in their broadcasts reaching millions, and those other private entities have billions of dollars at their disposal, it’s good to protect one’s copyright against those guys because they CAN afford to pay big fines for breaching copyright… even if it is a bit frivolous.

Jeff (user link) says:


When large organizations do bullshit like this, it just starts a smear campaign against them…and there’s nothing they can do about it. It’s the people, the citizenry, who do the smearing. If the Olympics (come and get me) people want to sue people for using the name of their organization, we shouldn’t allow the Olympics to be hosted in this country anymore. Come here, sue people, then expect hospitality? Pardon my French, but fuck you. Brutally. With a fork.

crapped on sportsfan says:

Re: morons

It wasn’t too many years ago the Portland Trailblazers were threatening to sue their own fans for using their on-air announcer’s well known term “rip-city” on homemade signs and banners when the team went to the finals. Talk about shitting in your own shoes…this seems to be typical of company managment nowadays. And collectively we seem only too willing to forget such transgretions and keep handing over our money.

sick of all the corporate whining says:


I’ve always been a fan of the “give ’em what they appear to want…in spades!” school of thought. Don’t mention the olympics or any other confrontational entity…unless they pay for ad time. No free media time for the likes of nike or its swoosh, professional sports…nothing. Collegiate sports can have a free ride- for the time being. Of course, I favor replacing curling with mountaineering, but then thats just me.

|333173|3|_||3 says:


As I understand it, this is a positive statutory instrument, which means it must be votred on by the Commons, ratehr than a negative one (which cancels another Instrumant) which merely must be laid before the House for 60 days or an Administrative Order which is merely signed by a relevant Minister (whom is simply excercising a power he aldready has). Hopefully this will mean that even if is it passed, it will beocme a laughing stock.

|333173|3|_||3 (user link) says:

Sorry about the last post, now I'v read the bill

The relevant section is Section 17, with 18 detailing how regulations are to be applied, and 19 regard enforcement. see the relevant page here. The regulations are to be passed by a ststuorty instrument and must be passed by both Houses, which maens that any ridiculous regulations would become a laughingstock. If an Opposition does not want something passed, they can delay it for ages by forcing a division on every clause. Divisions take 10-20 minutes and involve, when the bell sounds, all MPs rushing to the Divisions Lobby to pass through the correct door. Since it is not unusual for ministers to be in their offices in Whitehall during a debate, they may well find that they have to jump up in the middle of a meeting, run down the road, and vote based purely on a whip handed to them by thier private secretary. Although a ststutory Instrument is passed by a singe resolution, the Opposition can threaten, quitely and unnoficially, to waste lots of time on a major governement bill to block one, a not uncommon tactic. Anyway, it can take a month or so to pass the necessary resolution, so that would make it difficult to impose a ban on anything too quickly, although I recognise that they do have several years to impose such bans.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...