Law for the Protection of the Olympic Emblem and Names

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basic data
Title: Law for the Protection of the Olympic Emblem and Names
Abbreviation: OlympSchG
Type: Federal law
Scope: Federal Republic of Germany
Legal matter: Intellectual Property
References : 423-7
Issued on: March 31, 2004
( BGBl. I p. 479 )
Entry into force on: April 7 and July 1, 2004
Please note the note on the applicable legal version.

The law for the protection of the Olympic emblem and the Olympic designations , abbreviated as Olympic Protection Act (OlympSchG), was passed by the German Bundestag on January 23, 2004 after five months of deliberation and came into effect on July 1, 2004 after the approval of the Bundesrat (February 13, 2004) in force. The state governments' authority to issue ordinances pursuant to Section 9 (2) OlympSchG came into force on April 7, 2004.

The subject of the so-called Olympic Protection Act is "the protection of the Olympic emblem and the Olympic designations" in the Federal Republic of Germany.

The OlympSchG is part of private law , more precisely of trademark law . It was enacted in order to place the Olympic names and the Olympic emblem , which otherwise cannot be protected as trademarks, under the sole power of disposal of the IOC (or the NOK ). The aim was to create the conditions for the Olympic Games in Germany, as the IOC only considers countries that grant the IOC the exclusive rights for these brands.

Legal background

Since Olympia is part of numerous existing trademarks (98 pieces - as of January 4, 2007), a trademark registration would have stood in the way of absolute refusal (Section 8 (2 ) of the Trademark Act ).

criticism

Critics describe the OlympSchG as unconstitutional because it is an individual law that violates the rule of law. In addition, the commercial interests of the International Olympic Committee or the National Olympic Committee would be preferred.

In a judgment dated November 22, 2005, the Darmstadt Regional Court expressed concerns about the constitutionality of the Olympic Protection Act (file number 14 O 744/04). Instead of submitting the law to the Federal Constitutional Court for review by way of the so-called "Concrete Control of Norms" , however, the court only opted for a restrictive, constitutional interpretation . The decision is now final, but not binding on other courts beyond the specific legal dispute. A petition against the OlympSchG at the petitions committee of the German Bundestag was not granted.

In a further ruling on June 21, 2012, the Kiel Regional Court decided on a lawsuit filed by the DOSB that advertising with “Olympic prizes” and an “Olympic discount” does not violate Section 3 of the OlympSchG. In the opinion of the court, the Olympic names cannot be protected per se against any commercial use. In connection with the words discount and prices, the reference to the Olympic designations only conveys that the offers are very good and that these reductions are being offered for the current reason (file number 15 O 158/11). The Schleswig Higher Regional Court overturned the decision of the Kiel Regional Court in a judgment of June 26, 2013 (file number 6 U 31/12) and allowed the appeal to the Federal Court of Justice . The Federal Court of Justice overturned the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig on May 15, 2014 (file number I ZR 131/13) and referred the legal dispute back to the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig for a new hearing and decision. The judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig of May 15, 2014 is now final, as the DOSB has withdrawn its action.

After press wanted DOSB -Generaldirektor Michael Vesper early 2010 against the emblem of Radkampagne in Nuremberg Nuremberg rises to proceed because there bikes are displayed with their wheels could be confused with the Olympic rings.

Web links

literature

  • Christoph Degenhart : "Olympia and the legislature: Is special legal protection justified?", In: AfP - Journal for Media and Communication Law, 2006, pp. 103-110.
  • Peter W. Heermann : "When does the use of Olympic names violate § 3 II OlympSchG?", In: GRUR , 2014, pp. 233–241.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ DPMAregister | Register information from the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA). Retrieved July 30, 2018 .
  2. ↑ [1] . Comment on OlympSchG
  3. ↑ Degenhart AfP 2/2006
  4. ^ Judgment LG Darmstadt accessed on March 1, 2010 (PDF; 156 kB)
  5. ↑ § 322 ZPO.
  6. ↑ Archive link ( Memento from January 5, 2007 in the Internet Archive ). Petition against the OlympSchG
  7. ↑ Christian Spiller: Sports Law: Five Rings to Make Money. In: Zeit Online. April 7, 2011, accessed August 14, 2012 .
  8. ^ Judgment of the Kiel Regional Court of June 26, 2012, file number 15 O 158/11
  9. ^ Judgment of the Schleswig Higher Regional Court of June 26, 2013, file number 6 U 31/12
  10. ^ Judgment of the Federal Court of Justice of May 15, 2014, file number I ZR 131/13
  11. ↑ Logo dispute: Olympic bosses admonish the city. nordbayern.de of February 12, 2010; accessed on April 13, 2018.