5 ms·
I do disagree with the dichotomy; I doubt firms would stop paying to be official sponsors just because others were allowed to use the terms sensibly (i.e. not i
by njs12345 15y ago
I do disagree with the dichotomy; I doubt firms would stop paying to be official sponsors just because others were allowed to use the terms sensibly (i.e. not implying that they were affliated with the Games).
Also, we already have plenty of trademark protections. I don't see why they're not sufficient for the Olympics, given that they seem to work fine for everything else.
- regularfry 15y agoI think the argument goes that they're such a high-profile target for trademark infringement that it would be impossible for them to police and enforce it to a sufficient degree without extra state protection.
- billpg 15y agoBecause the IOC demanded that their minions be designated a privileged class. The parliament of the day fell over themselves to give in to those demands. They had to! The games might have gone to Paris. Wouldn't that have been terrible?