> Personally, I find the privileges for Red Cross (et al) to be not that unreasonable. My only caveat would be genuine free speech uses should still be protected IMO. 
> 
> Much less happy with the Olympics, and I think we should not let it go in the current form. Quoting the Nairobi treaty in support is dishonest (the treaty protects the Olympic five rings symbol, not the word Olympics), and the word Olympic is not 'those terms most directly associated with the International Olympic Committee'. I haven't checked most of the legislation quoted in support, but most of it seems to be legislation enacted relating to the Nairobi Treaty/Olympic symbol, not the word 'Olympic' (certainly, the Australian act they quote does not mention the word Olympic, and protects trade marks only incorporating the Olympic symbol or motto). 
> 
> The IOC know perfectly well that they do not have that level of control over the use of the word Olympic in any context, they just want it and think they can slip it by the GAC. There are numerous businesses that have Olympic as part of a trademark, and I count 5 on the first page of google results+ads, selling air travel, paint, cameras, travel, etc. 

http://www.olympic.com/ paint and stain company.

Plus, of course, Olympia in Greece might have a geographic issue with the 
word Olympic as well.



-- 
Professor Andrew A Adams                      [log in to unmask]
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/