The IPKat has been receiving loads of correspondence concerning the freshly-launched logo for the London 2012 Olympic Games (right). Most of the reaction he has heard so far has been negative. Many people think it's ugly, clunky and vulgar. However, the IPKat is singing its praises for the following reasons: Merpel - who wouldn't be seen dead with it - reminds readers that there are plenty of designs which have since become classics but which were launched amid well-informed criticism.* It is highly striking and identifiable, which means that it has the capacity to do what a logo is supposed to do;
* There's a pretty good chance that something as quirky as this will be registrable for the many classes of goods and services for which trade mark registration will be needed;
* It has - quite remarkably for anything to do with the London Olympics - been delivered ahead of time and within budget;* It will cost less to maintain than the other symbol of our times in London, the Millennium Dome, and fits more easily on to the corner of a T-shirt.
What they say about the logo: comments from the BBC, Anorak (which pillories the new logo's style, left), The Spoof, Adrants, Daily Mail and DollyMix.You've seen the logo - and now here's the movie
Dubious Olympic sports here , here and here
THAT Olympic logo!
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Rating:
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
I'm not getting numbers at all. I can see two people dancing. OK by me.
ReplyDeleteCriticism of logos is a national sport. Such criticism is an expression of trendily bespectacled thirty something designers earning pots of money.
I've nothing against the logo itself, which I agree is striking, just the ethos behind it. It's trying to turn graffiti into a corporate brand, when the very thing that graffiti likes to rail against is corporate branding and the mass repetition that implies. Bad plan.
ReplyDeleteIt's also just a bit sad that the best thing they could come up with to represent London/England/UK was graffiti.
I think it does exactly what a logo should do in terms of trade marks so I give it the big thumbs up.
ReplyDeleteOn a slightly separate note, I was at a conference last week where I saw a chap with a t-shirt that said: "THIS is the new THAT". How appropriate :-)
If someone hadn't told me that it was the logo for the Olympics I would have disregarded it as some kind of sticker or tag thing which was targeted at 13 year olds. Its not a very universal design.
ReplyDeleteThe Olympics logo is simply terrible.
it seems like it will just need a bit of time to grow on people.
ReplyDeletefor now though, i do much prefer the beijing 2008 logo.
My worry would be more about whether the Olympic Committee thinks that the trade mark gives them any rights over use of '2012' in relation to commercial activities. Non-approved companies will be prevented from using official words or symbols associated with the Olympic games, and will have to be very careful when trying to link any promotional activity to the games without it being approved (i.e. paid for). Would use of "The 2012 Games" be seen to be infringing? I think it might.
ReplyDeleteI think I can answer my own question. "The 2012 Games" will definitely infringe, according to this document from the London 2012 site. Thanks to Impact for the info.
ReplyDeleteSee some amusing alternative versions here.
ReplyDelete