The US Olympic Committee took the position that non-sponsors could not tweet about the Games, and sent warning letters to businesses using hashtags like #TeamUSA and #Rio2016. A Minnesota carpet-cleaning company decided to find out whether that was actually the law.
What the IOC owns
Certain intellectual property connected with the Games belongs to the International Olympic Committee — the flag, motto, anthem, identifiers, designations, emblems, flame and torches — over which the IOC holds exclusive rights.
Sponsorship keeps the Games financially viable, which is the justification for how far the protections reach.
Rule 40
Under the Olympic Charter, Rule 40 required athletes to cut ties with non-official partners until three days after the Games concluded. Its bye-law provided that only approved official sponsors could reference Olympic-related terms until midnight on 24 August.
The effect was severe. Personal sponsors of athletes could not even retweet good wishes or use Olympic terms on social media. Athletes were restricted in promoting themselves, and their sponsors in supporting them — technically requiring athletes to sever ties with their own sponsors for the duration.
The rationale: ambush marketing
These rules exist to counter ambush marketing — also called parasite marketing. Where a commercial entity claims an association it has not paid for with a major event, official sponsors get no value for the considerable sums they spent. It harms sponsors, dilutes the value of the event, and confuses consumers and fans.
Where it went wrong
The USOC has long defended its IP assertively and been involved in numerous trademark suits. In 2016 its warning letters to businesses worldwide drew wide attention.
Zerorez, a Minnesota carpet-cleaning company, sued the USOC after receiving a cease and desist letter over tweets wishing well to eleven Minnesotans representing the US in Rio. It sought a declaratory judgment clarifying the law on public discourse and social media.
The legal position is what makes the case interesting. In an ordinary trademark suit, a plaintiff must establish consumer confusion. But the USOC’s special statutory protection under the US Code means it does not have to prove confusion — the mere use of its marks by a commercial entity is treated as infringing.
That is an unusually strong right, and it is why the letters reached conduct that ordinary trademark law would never have caught.
Ambush marketing in India
India has no well-established legislative framework for ambush marketing. Two episodes illustrate the gap.
During IPL 2016, Apple’s CEO was reported watching a match, and title sponsor Vivo was critical of the publicity a competitor’s chief executive received. And Coca-Cola sold beverages outside 2016 ICC World Twenty20 venues, despite PepsiCo being an official ICC sponsor and ICC rules preventing direct competitors of sponsors from being visible at match venues.
Absent legislation, organisers rely on contractual controls, venue rules and passing off — which reach the venue perimeter and little beyond it.
The balance
Ambush marketing is a real problem, and not every commercial entity is an ambusher. Stringent precautions of the kind the USOC adopted caused hardship to businesses that were honest well-wishers, with no intention of exploiting the Games’ fame.
Even accepting the USOC’s special protection, there should be leeway for commercial entities to discuss the Games without that discussion constituting infringement.
What happened next. That argument prevailed. Following a German competition authority ruling in 2019, the IOC substantially relaxed Rule 40, and national committees issued revised guidance allowing athletes far greater freedom to thank and acknowledge personal sponsors during the Games, subject to conditions. The restriction that generated the Rio controversy — a near-total blackout on non-official sponsors — no longer operates in the same form.
The underlying tension remains: protecting sponsorship investment against genuine free-riding, without turning ordinary speech about a public event into an infringement.
The takeaways
- The IOC owns the emblems, motto, anthem and related identifiers.
- Rule 40 restricted athletes and non-official sponsors during the Games window.
- The USOC need not prove confusion — special statutory protection.
- Rule 40 was relaxed after 2019 following a competition law challenge.
Frequently asked questions
What is ambush marketing? Claiming an association with a major event that the marketer has not paid for, depriving official sponsors of the value of their sponsorship and confusing consumers.
What was Olympic Rule 40? A rule requiring athletes to cut ties with non-official partners around the Games, restricting references to Olympic terms to approved sponsors only.
Is Rule 40 still as strict? No — following a 2019 competition authority ruling, it was substantially relaxed, allowing athletes greater freedom to acknowledge personal sponsors.
Does India have anti-ambush marketing legislation? No dedicated framework — organisers rely on contractual controls, venue rules and passing off actions.
Useful official resources
- International Olympic Committee
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999