Trade Marks and the Olympic Games: Takeaways from the “LOGAN 2032” Trade Mark Dispute

The Olympic Games is more than a sporting spectacle – it also encompasses some of the world’s most recognisable trade marks. From the iconic coloured rings to the names of host cities and their associated mascots, Olympic trade marks are well-known and well-protected. Over the years, several trade mark disputes surrounding the Olympic Games have occurred as a result, including:

• Tokyo 2020 dealt with logo plagiarism allegations, which led to a redesign before the Olympic Games began;
• London 2012 saw small UK businesses faced with legal action for using “2012” alongside Olympic imagery, even in non-sports contexts;
• Beijing 2008 led to a significant increase in counterfeit merchandise flooding international markets, which prompted authorities to take action to protect the integrity of official Olympic branding.

These examples show that Olympic-related trade marks are valuable, highly regulated, and often give rise to challenges in commerce. The lead-up to Brisbane 2032 is proving no different.

Olympic Trade Marks Have Their Own Legislative Protection

In Australia, Olympic trade marks enjoy an extra layer of legal protection under the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 (Cth). This Act protects certain words, phrases, and symbols – including “Olympics”, the Olympic motto “citius, altius, fortius” and the famous five-ring symbol – beyond the protections available under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). Only authorised bodies such as the Australian Olympic Committee can use these Olympian trade marks commercially.

This approach is not unique to Australia. Many jurisdictions grant the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and national organising committees heightened protection for Olympic marks, including in the USA, UK, EU and Canada.

This means that, even if a party can register an Olympic-related trade mark under local trade mark law, it may still face restrictions or require explicit authorisation from the relevant Olympic body to use its trade mark in commerce. Globally, the message is consistent: Olympic branding is not just another trade mark – it’s a protected asset with its own legal system. This protection extends to certain city-year combinations (e.g., “Brisbane 2032”) that clearly refer to the Olympic Games.

The “LOGAN 2032” Case Overview

Two competing trade mark applications have recently been filed in Australia for LOGAN 2032, a reference to the upcoming 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games:

1.	No. 2543640 — filed 29 April 2025 by Logan City Council (LCC); and
2. LOGAN 2032	No. 2547112 — filed 12 May 2025 by Brisbane Organising Committee for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games (BOC).

Neither party currently holds exclusive rights – such rights are only afforded upon registration, and that only occurs once a trade mark is accepted and unopposed. Both applications are currently still under examination and have received adverse examination reports from IP Australia.

Both applications were blocked from acceptance due to distinctiveness issues under s 41(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), as IP Australia considers “LOGAN 2032” too descriptive to uniquely identify one trader from another. Additionally, LCC’s earlier application blocks BOC’s application from acceptance due to similarities. Both parties could potentially overcome these objections, for example by providing evidence of use demonstrating the mark has already acquired distinctiveness or is likely to do so in the future.

The bigger question however is: who should own this Olympic brand?

Legally, the registered owner should be the entity that uses and controls the trade mark for the claimed goods and services. If BOC governs Olympic-related branding and LCC plays a supporting role, ownership by BOC might make more sense. However, the solution isn’t always that simple, and the parties may wish to enter an IP Licence Agreement in which they could:

1. Identify a single registered owner;
2. Allow both parties to use the brand under defined conditions;
3. Prevent public confusion through consistent presentation; and
4. Clarify licensing rights for merchandise, events, and promotions.

In instances such as the above, collaboration is key: agreeing on a shared commercial strategy now would allow the true trade mark owner to focus on overcoming IP Australia’s objections and securing the trade mark before others step in and risk diluting the Brisbane 2032 branding market. Also, the application still faces a two-month opposition period once objections are resolved, and third parties can challenge the registration within that period. Early alignment therefore reduces risks and avoids costly disputes.

Key Takeaways for Businesses

• Olympic branding is afforded with strict legal inspection on a global scale.
• Evidence of use may help businesses overcome distinctiveness objections.
• Trade mark ownership in Australia should reflect actual trade mark use and control – not filing priority.
• Licensing agreements are often vital where multiple stakeholders are involved in branding.

As the “LOGAN 2032” case shows, securing Olympic-related trade marks is less like a sprint and more like a marathon – requiring strategy, teamwork, and often quite a bit of endurance.

At MBIP, we help our local and global clients to navigate the complex trade marking space, ensuring that trade marks meet the local legal standards in Australia and New Zealand, as well as globally. If you are considering adopting a trade mark with references to the upcoming Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games, or you have any questions about correct trade mark ownership or licensing arrangements, we’d be pleased to help you forward. Contact us via email, call 07 3369 2226 or request a meeting here: Book a Meeting – MBIP. 

Featured image by drobotdean on Freepik