Every four years, the world comes together to watch the best athletes compete for a shot at glory. Not only is the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee ("USOPC") the organization to send Team USA to the Olympic Games, but the USOPC also monitors the use of their intellectual property rights. The USOPC, in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Court of Colorado on July 19, alleges that YouTube star Logan Paul and his beverage company, Prime Hydration, have infringed on the USOPC’s trademarks and symbols associated with the 2024 Olympic Games with their recent promotion with Team USA/NBA superstar Kevin Durant.

The USOPC has held trademarks relating to the Olympic Games for over a century. Some phrases that they have trademarked include, among others, Olympic, Olympian, Team USA, and Go for the Gold. The complaint alleges that Prime Hydration has allegedly repeatedly used these “Olympic-related terminology and trademarks” with phrases on the bottles that include “Kevin Durant Olympic Prime Drink!” and “Celebrate Greatness with the Kevin Durant Prime Drink”.[1] 

The complaint further states that every Olympic Games, the USOPC engages in a “robust licensing program” in which sponsors and other partners are allowed to use trademarks owned by the USOPC. Currently, Coca-Cola is the only beverage company with an exclusive license to use the USOPC’s trademarks. The complaint elaborates that “because consumers have been exposed to sponsored uses in so many industries, they are likely to believe that any use of Olympic trademarks to promote the sale of goods are under license.”

On July 10, the USOPC wrote a cease-and-desist letter and contacted the beverage company to stop using their trademarks. The USOPC alleges that Prime Hydration's use of the Olympic mark has been “willful, deliberate, and in bad faith, with malicious intent to trade on the goodwill associated with the USOPC’s marks.” Prime Hydration continued to show the infringing bottle until July 19.

Trademark law in the United States is governed by the Lanham Act. The goal of trademark law is to protect consumers and to ensure that they are not misled or confused as to the source of goods. To determine trademark infringement, the court will look to whether there is a likelihood of confusion among a reasonably prudent purchaser of the products at issue. Some of the factors that courts weigh when determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists include the following:[2]

1. The strength of the Plaintiff’s mark

2. Relatedness of the goods and services

3. Similarity of the marks

4. Evidence of actual confusion

5. Marketing channels used

6. Likely degree of purchaser care

7. Defendant’s intent in selecting the mark

8. Likelihood of expansion of the product lines

As the USOPC vigorously protects its intellectual property to prevent any unauthorized exploitation that could potentially dilute the value of its marks or cause consumer confusion, it appears to have a strong case for infringement. The lawsuit seeks millions of dollars in damages, and the damage request includes receiving all the profits made from the infringing beverage and compensation for the harm caused by violating the USOPC’s sponsorship agreements.

As we continue to enjoy the excitement and unity of the Olympic Games, this case underscores the importance of protecting the integrity of the USOPC’s trademarks. The Olympic Games are so widely recognizable, and the Games do not only embody athletic excellence but also the symbols associated with them. Proper adherence to trademark laws ensures that the integrity of the Games is preserved and that all related branding is used with the necessary permissions, safeguarding the Olympic spirit for years to come.

Shelby Stevens is a rising 3L at Gonzaga University School of Law. She is also the Northwest regional representative of the Conduct Detrimental Law Student Board. She can be found on LinkedIn at Shelby Stevens.

Sources:

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/07/22/logan-paul-prime-energy-drink-olympic-lawsuit/74502244007/.

[2] Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir. 1983).