Legal Opinion
United States Olympic Committee v. Intelicense Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided June 18, 1984No. Nos. 1324, 1331, Dockets 83-9025, 83-9063PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
IRVING R. KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge.
We are asked today to decide whether the five-ring Olympic symbol can be commercially marketed within the United States without the consent of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC). While the roots of the Olympic Games can be traced to the first Olympiad held in Ancient Greece in 776 B.C., the temporal spectrum necessary to resolve this dispute is far more modest, extending over the six-year period since the promulgation of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 (the “Act”), 36 U.S.C. §§ 371-96. The fundamental purpose of that Act was to safeguard the USOC’s…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Reid v. CovertSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- United States v. DowSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- United States v. Harold Lawrence BlasiusCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
- Lacey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1979
- Stop the Olympic Prison v. United States Olympic CommitteeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1980
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- O-M Bread, Inc. And Roush Products Company, Inc. v. United States Olympic CommitteeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Cavin v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1989
- United States Olympic Committee v. Intelicense Corporation, S.A., International Sports Marketing, Inc., International Sports Marketing, Inc., Intelicense, S.A. v. United States Olympic CommitteeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- International Olympic Committee v. San Francisco Arts & AthleticsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- International Olympic Committee v. San Francisco Arts & AthleticsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.