Olympic Removals is the unfortunate name of a removal business that has been told it must remove the Olympic symbol from its livery or face some pretty rough litigation. According to the Hertfordshire Mercury, spotted by the eagle-eyed Claire Argent, Olympic Removals -- which happens to be located directly opposite the world-class white water course currently under construction -- has received a warning email from LOCOG, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, to stop using their long-established logo or face being sued. The firm maintains that it has used the five-ring symbol for 22 years and says it will not budge.
LOCOG says the removal firm, which specialises in library moves, should take down or paint over the Olympic rings logo which adorns its fleets of lorries, vans and other signs, and withdraw it from its marketing materials. The deadline for action (17 July) has now passed. The company says it would cost a small fortune to change the firm’s logo, but if they were offered proper compensation they would consider it.A London 2012 Organising Committee spokesman said:
“The Olympic symbol is the most valuable asset of the Olympic movement and is integral to us privately raising the £2bn needed to stage and host the Games. We are obliged to prevent its use by third parties who do not have an official association with the Olympic movement while respecting the rights of those who are able to do so under the law. We cannot comment on individual cases.The IPKat hopes that some compromise can be found. Perhaps, for a small consideration, Olympic Removals can become a sponsor: Official Library Removals Supplier or something along those lines.However, LOCOG deals with every matter on a case-by-case basis and will always”.
Cats in danger of being Olympically crushed here
Olympic Delivery Authority delivers ... CATS!
But will they remove their rings?
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Monday, July 27, 2009
Rating:
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Monday, July 27, 2009
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
Is this the same Olympic Removals that were formed in 1987 and disolved on 9th June 2009?
ReplyDeletehttp://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/6e87bd2e2850c4387d1e33bf2a975d10/compdetails
....or for no consideration whatsoever add the words "Not the official remover of the Olympic Games" to their lorries and advertising . Er, um, that may not exactly help but it's all good publicity, yes ? Will Phillip Johnson be available to cover "reverse ambush marketing" or "statements of non-connection" in one of your seminars ?
ReplyDeleteWere they doing business in the US, the USOC would object to the word Olympics in their name, too.
ReplyDeleteThere are around 50 trade marks registered in the UK that include the word ‘Olympic’ many of which
ReplyDeleteare not owned by the British Olympic Association but all were filed before 20th September
1995. These marks include Olympic Airways11, Olympic Blinds, the word Olympic for electric
razors owned by Hitachi; for milk products owned by Milk Products (N.Z.) Ltd; and for pet
food owned by Grain Harvesters Limited.
See Article:
http://www.5rb.com/articles/detail.asp?ArticleID=23
If you read the story it seems that the objection is to the use of the rings, not the word Olympic.
ReplyDeleteAs regards the much maligned London Olympic logo, it has always seemed to me that it is certainly distinctive and part of the thinking behind it must have been that no unauthorised user could have any conceivable excuse for doing so.
Reason why i checked companies house register was that i believe if the company name was registered BEFORE the OSPA came into force in 1995, they would be able to continue to use the "Olympic" element as part of their company name. I'm guessing they didn't register the rings element as part of their TM, hence could not claim any right to use those.
ReplyDeleteAs regards the much maligned London Olympic logo, it has always seemed to me that it is certainly distinctive and part of the thinking behind it must have been that no unauthorised user could have any conceivable excuse for doing so.
ReplyDeleteIt is so ugly, I can't think of any conceivable excuse even for authorised users, for that matter.
Although, as for its distinctive character, you may be aware of a particularly horrible meme regarding its similarity to a popular cartoon character...
Clearly noone from LOCOG has been round Fulham way in a while where the "Olympic Cafe" (plus rings) is going strong.....
ReplyDelete