Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

The Brazilian Olympics and Intellectual Property

By Ana Hadnes Bruder & Benjamin Beck on August 12, 2016
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The Olympic Games 2016 which take place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 5 to 21 August are supported by a huge volume of marketing and advertising campaigns. As many countries have done before, Brazil enacted special legislation to protect the Olympic symbols and expressions specific to the games hosted in Rio. The protection offered in these Olympic-special legislations often can go beyond what would normally be available under trademark or copyright protection laws. For example, the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 created a sui generis right of association to prevent the use of any representation that is likely to suggest an association between the London Olympics and goods or services.

Germany, as another example, also put some special legislation into place. However, a company that had offered “Olympic discounts” in its advertisements during the 2008 games was found not to infringe the German Olympic Protection Act. The German Federal Supreme Court ruled that, unlike trademark protection, the Olympic Protection Act did not grant legal protection to the advertising function of the Olympic symbols. Therefore, a mere time-related reference like “Olympic discounts” did not lead to infringement.

The Brazilian Olympic Act

Under the Brazilian Olympic Act (Federal Law No 12,035/2009), as amended by the Brazilian Federal Law No 13,284/2016, the Olympic symbols are granted special temporary protection. These include emblems, flags, anthems, mottos, mascots and torches used by the International Olympic Committee, the International Paralympics Committee and the Association Rio 2016, charged with the organization of the Games. The protected symbols also include various expressions such as Olympic Games, Paralympic Games and Rio 2016 – in any language. However, unlike the London Olympic Act, for example, the Olympic symbols are all subject to protection under trademark law. The protection period shall begin with registration of the symbols with the Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) and extend until 31 December 2016.

The use of such symbols is prohibited, even for non-commercial purposes, except if authorized by the International Olympic Committee or the Association Rio 2016. Furthermore, the act prohibits the use of terms and expressions that, albeit outside the list of protected symbols, are sufficiently similar to them to the extent that they are able to invoke an undue association of any products and services whatsoever, or even any event or company, with the Rio 2016 Games or the Olympic Movement.

During the time of protection, requests for registration of trademarks that constitute a reproduction or an imitation of the official symbols or are likely to cause any confusion or association with the organizing entities or the official symbols, shall be rejected. In addition, the INPI shall inform the responsible entity for the registration of domain names in Brazil, NIC.br, of all registered trademarks, so that any requests for registration of domain names containing terms or expressions identical or similar to the trademarks be refused ex officio.

Enjoy the Games!

Even though the legislation may have arrived a bit late (Federal Law No 13,284/2016 was published on 10 May 2016), the Olympic Act provides a solid framework for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights related to the Olympic games. So, all that is left for corporate sponsors or fans of the Olympics is to enjoy the Games!

 

This article was originally published on AllAboutIP – Mayer Brown’s  blog on relevant developments in the fields of intellectual property and unfair competition law. For intellectual property-themed videos, Mayer Brown has launched a dedicated channel available here.

Photo of Ana Hadnes Bruder Ana Hadnes Bruder

Ana Hadnes Bruder is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Frankfurt office and an active member of the global Cybersecurity & Data Privacy practice. She is also a member of the firm’s Intellectual Property practice. Ana advises clients on data privacy and cybersecurity matters…

Ana Hadnes Bruder is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Frankfurt office and an active member of the global Cybersecurity & Data Privacy practice. She is also a member of the firm’s Intellectual Property practice. Ana advises clients on data privacy and cybersecurity matters, including preparing for and reacting to cyber-attacks, assessing and making required data breach notifications, analyzing data protection implications of new products and tools and providing strategic advice with a focus on cross-border data processing. Ana further advises on Technology Transactions including cloud services, data and software licensing agreements, SaaS agreements, software development projects, e-commerce, and related Cybersecurity & Data Privacy questions.

Ana is a registered lawyer in Germany and Brazil and has ten years of international experience as legal counsel in Brazil, France and Germany. Ana started her career at Mayer Brown in the Dispute Resolution practice where she represented clients in litigation and arbitration proceedings involving complex commercial, intellectual property and liability matters.

Before joining Mayer Brown, Ana gained experience representing foreign clients in judicial proceedings in Brazil and also worked as in-house counsel for a leading French company in Paris.

Read full bio

Read more about Ana Hadnes BruderEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Benjamin Beck Benjamin Beck

Benjamin Beck is an associate in Mayer Brown’s Düsseldorf office and a member of the Intellectual Property practice.

Publications

Post GDPR Enforcement in Germany — A Sneak Peek, in: Privacy & Data Protection Journal (PDP), 2019, No. 5, p. 16-17, with Dr. Ulrich…

Benjamin Beck is an associate in Mayer Brown’s Düsseldorf office and a member of the Intellectual Property practice.

Publications

Post GDPR Enforcement in Germany — A Sneak Peek, in: Privacy & Data Protection Journal (PDP), 2019, No. 5, p. 16-17, with Dr. Ulrich Worm

Annotation to Higher Regional Court of Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), Germany, Judgment of 25 September 2018 — (4) 161 Ss 28/18 (35/18), in: Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW), 2019, No. 1, p. 42-46, with Dr. Dominik König

Die Wirksamkeit von sog. „Nicht-Einsatz-Klauseln“ für den Wettbewerb der Fußball-Bundesliga, in: Zeitschrift für Sport und Recht (SpuRt), 2019, No. 1, p. 2-6, with Patrick Schulz

Bitcoin and Money, in: Leslie Thompson, Jean-Toussaint Pindi, Stephanie Amar-Flood (ed.), Anglais appliqué: Economie, Gestion, Droit, AES, 4th ed. 2018, p. 44-45

GDPR Implications for Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technologies, in: SA Financial Regulation Journal, 19.06.2018, with Dr. Ulrich Worm

Yoga and Copyright, in: WIPO Magazine, 2017, No. 3, p. 44-45, with Konstantin von Werder

Annotation to Administrative Court of Frankfurt am Main (Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt), Germany, Judgment of 31 October 2016 — 1 K 2903/15.F, in: Kommunikation & Recht (K&R), 2017, No. 2, p. 142-144, with Dr. Dominik König

IP scenarios in a Brexit world, in: World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR), 18.07.2016, with Dr. Ulrich Worm

Судебная практика в Германии / Court practice in Germany, in: Интеллектуальная собственность Казахстана (Intellectual property of Kazakhstan), 2016, No. 1, p. 13-16, with Ana Elisa Bruder and Konstantin von Werder

Oktoberfest for the UPC?, in: World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR), 24.03.2016, with Dr. Ulrich Worm

Die immaterialgüterrechtliche Schutzfähigkeit von „Affen-Selfies“, in: Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (ZUM), Vol. 60 (2016), No. 1, p. 34-38, with Dominik König

Bitcoins als Gegenstand von sekundären Leistungspflichten. Erfassung dem Grunde und der Höhe nach, in: Archiv für die civilistische Praxis (AcP), Vol. 215 (2015), No. 5, p. 655-682, with Dominik König

Annotation to CJEU, Judgment of 22 October 2015 — C‑264/14 — David Hedqvist, in: Umsatzsteuer-Rundschau (UR), 2015, No. 22, p. 864-871, with Dominik König

Court considers likelihood of confusion between word marks using same letters in different order, in: World Trademark Review Daily, 25.09.2015, with Konstantin von Werder

Do Bitcoins Fulfil the Classic Economic Functions of Money? An Analysis and its Legal Implications, published online on lichter-filmfest.de on 09.03.2015

Bitcoins als Geld im Rechtssinne, in: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), Vol. 68 (2015), No. 9, p. 580-586

Bitcoin: Der Versuch einer vertragstypologischen Einordnung von kryptographischem Geld, in: JuristenZeitung (JZ), Vol. 70 (2015), No. 3, p. 130-138, with Dominik König

Klinische und rechtliche Aspekte einer Abstinenzkontrolle unter besonderer Berücksichtigung kontinuierlicher transdermaler Alkoholmessung, in: Blutalkohol – Alcohol, Drugs and Behavior (BA), Vol. 50 (2013), No. 4, p. 153-167

Elektronische Fußfessel – Fluch oder Segen der Kriminalpolitik?, in: Schriftenreihe der Stiftung der Hessischen Rechtsanwaltschaft, Vol. 2 (2011), p. 65-94

Read more about Benjamin BeckEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    All About IP
  • Organization:
    Mayer Brown

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo