In this case study video, I explain how the International Olympic Committee (IOC) won a dispute under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) for the domain name <imaocolympic.com> — just days before the pandemic-delayed Tokyo Olympic Games are about to begin.
The disputed domain name was used in connection with a website supposedly for the “International Martial Arts Olympic Committee” and included a variation of the Olympic rings. But according to the UDRP decision, the website also contained some links that redirected Internet users to adult dating pages.
As I explain in the video, the IOC is very serious about protecting the so-called Olympic Movement, which obviously includes the Olympic trademark and the rings. In fact, many countries around the world have adopted legislation protecting the Olympic brand as part of the Nairobi Treaty, which was adopted in 1981 and is administered by WIPO, the same organization where the IOC filed its UDRP complaint. Here in the United States, for example, the U.S. Code specifically grants exclusive rights to use the word “Olympic” and the five interlocking rings, which creates even stronger protection than is available for almost all other trademarks.
In this case, the UDRP panel wrote:
After having reviewed the Complainant’s screenshots of the website linked to the disputed domain name, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name comprising the OLYMPIC trademark in order to generate traffic to its own website. The Panel notes that the Respondent has not published any visible disclaimer on the website linked to the disputed domain name to explain that there is no existing relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant. Quite the opposite, the prominent use of a logo, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Olympic rings trademark and the nature of the disputed domain name is, in view of the Panel, sufficient evidence that the Respondent intentionally tries to attract, for commercial or other illegitimate gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its OLYMPIC trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website.
This is certainly not the first time that the IOC has gone after a cybersquatter under the UDRP. I located about a dozen UDRP cases that the IOC and various Olympic committees have filed through the years, involving such domain names as <usolympicstore.com>, <canadaolympichockey.com>, and <olympicmuseum.org>. All of the UDRP cases have resulted in decisions ordering transfers of the disputed domain names – which isn’t at all surprising.
However, I am surprised that more Olympic complaints have not been filed. I doubt that’s because cybesrquatters are avoiding the Olympic brand but instead probably because the IOC is simply not be prioritizing this issue. While that’s understandable, especially given everything the IOC has had to deal with this past year in rescheduling the Tokyo Games as a result of COVID-19, it seems a bit short-sighted to me.
The IOC, like all trademark owners, should recognize that cybersquatters damage their brand and confuse consumers. Being proactive, by filing UDRP complaints where appropriate, is a very simple – and an incredibly helpful – way to protect trademarks and the Internet users who depend on them, even if those trademarks are not nearly as famous as the Olympic brand.
