There is an agreement where states that host the Olympic games are 'required' to produce national legislation that seeks to protect the games associated with the hosting city. So for the 2012 London olympics, what is protected is the combination of the word but with London or olympics. This legislation is very limited to the specific year and city that hosts the olympics. So, a country does not have any rights in the word olympic unless it is associated with the year and the city that hosted the olympic games. This is a very significant detail.

KK

On Jun 1, 2012, David Cake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

It may be that other UDRPs are filed by national Olympic Committees rather than the IOC itself - the IOC has the treaty of Nairobi, but that only protects the 5 rings logo, and the national Olympic Committees usually have special (and often fairly outrageous IMO) laws to wield. 

Or it may be that IOC are just exaggerating for rhetorical effect. 

Cheers

David


On 01/06/2012, at 8:04 AM, Joy Liddicoat wrote:

Hi all I’ve had to step back from being involved in this GNSO Drafting Team – too much else going on. I really appreciate the work that Avri and Mary are still doing,  and wanted to share this news item link:
It states:
“ The IOC, incidentally, has only ever filed 15 UDRP cases, on average fewer than two per year, so claims about spending “significant amounts” on enforcement are questionable.”
Does anyone know if that is accurate? If so, I thought it might be relevant in some way in the DT considerations.
Joy Liddicoat
Project Coordinator
Internet Rights are Human Rights