Advertising with Olympic references – Legal boundaries and current case law
The promotional use of terms related to the Olympic Games regularly raises complex questions regarding trademark protection and the scope of protective laws. A landmark decision by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) from 2019 clarifies the boundaries of commercial advertising statements and sets standards for companies promoting products associated with the subject of “Olympics.” The following explains the key points of the decision, its legal background, and the practical consequences for the advertising and sporting goods industries.
Background: The Olympic Protection Act and its objectives
The Act for the Protection of the Olympic Emblem and certain Olympic Designations (Olympic Protection Act, or OlympSchG for short) ensures the protection of the Olympic rings as well as the terms “Olympics,” “Olympic,” and related designations against commercial exploitation. The purpose of this special legislative provision is to safeguard the economic interests of the German Olympic Sports Confederation (DOSB) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and to preserve the value of Olympic symbols and designations for the sports sponsorship market.
Starting point of the proceedings
In the case decided, the question arose as to whether the use of the term “olympiaverdächtig” (Olympic-caliber) in an advertising campaign for sportswear constituted a violation of the Olympic Protection Act. The plaintiff, the National Olympic Committee for Germany, considered this wording to be an impermissible exploitation of the reputation of Olympic designations and asserted claims for injunctive relief.
Reasons for the Federal Court of Justice’s decision
Requirements for a violation of the Olympic Protection Act
The Federal Court of Justice emphasized that the Olympic Protection Act indeed allows the monopolization of central Olympic terms. However, according to § 3 (2) OlympSchG, an unlawful use requires that the designation is either reserved for the Olympic Committee itself or authorized partners of the Olympic Movement, or that there is an undue exploitation or impairment of the reputation.
An inadmissible commercial use may generally be assumed when an image transfer occurs through the action; that is, it is suggested that a product or service has a particular association with the Olympic Games or official Olympic organizations. However, the boundary is not crossed with every reference: advertising must always be assessed in light of the specific circumstances and the relevant target audience.
Advertising statement “olympiaverdächtig”: No infringement of the protected scope
The BGH ruled that, in particular, the term “olympiaverdächtig” differs significantly from those terms specially protected by the Olympic Protection Act. The wording does not have a direct reference to the Olympic Games as an event or to the Olympic Committee itself. Instead, it alludes more generally to outstanding sporting achievements.
The judges also made it clear that neither the specific design of the advertising nor the accompanying statements created the impression of an official partnership or sponsorship. Therefore, there was also no prohibited exploitation of the reputation of Olympic designations within the meaning of the Olympic Protection Act.
Practical implications for companies and advertising
Scope of protection and risks
The decision underscores that the scope of protection for Olympic terms is not exceeded in every case of commercial use—especially not when a term is independently coined or modified, provided no association with official Olympic institutions or events is created.
Companies intending to advertise with Olympic associations are well advised to carefully review the choice of words, the overall context, and the target audience of the advertising measure. In cases of doubt, the advertising design should avoid any reference to an existing connection to the Olympic Movement, unless there is an official cooperation.
Impact on the sporting goods industry
The industry, through the BGH decision, is given a certain leeway to creatively handle terms related to top athletic performance. At the same time, however, a high degree of sensitivity remains necessary. This is because a boundary is drawn where the value of the Olympic spirit is deliberately used for sales promotion and the consumer assumes a partnership or advertising association with the Olympic institution.
Conclusion and outlook
The BGH’s case law strengthens, on the one hand, the protection of the Olympic emblem and associated names, but on the other hand, provides room for free commercial activity and creative communication by companies. The assessment of the permissibility of advertising measures with Olympic references remains a question of individual cases and depends crucially on whether an objective distance from the protected subjects is maintained.
The topic remains a key aspect of advertising and brand strategy for many companies, especially in the run-up to international sporting events. Should companies or private individuals be confronted with similar issues, it is advisable to obtain expert legal support in clarifying the permissible use for advertising. The Rechtsanwalt of MTR Legal have extensive experience in the fields of trademark protection and advertising law, both nationally and internationally, and are well acquainted with the current developments in this field.
Source: BGH, judgment dated March 7, 2019, Case No.: I ZR 225/17
