San Francisco Arts Athletics V Us Olympic Committee

1987 The states Supreme Court case

San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. Usa Olympic Commission
Supreme Court of the The states
Argued March 24, 1987 Decided June 25, 1987
Full case name	San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee
Citations	483 U.S. 522 (more than) 107 S. Ct. 2971; 97 L. Ed. second 427; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2895
Case history
Prior	Summary judgment for respondent granted, 219 U.Due south.P.Q. 982 (Due north.D. Cal., 1982); affirmed, 781 F.2d 733 (9th Cir. 1986), rehearing denied, 789 F.2d 1319; cert. granted, 479 U.South. 913 (1986).
Holding
USOC's correct to control the use of the give-and-take "Olympic" is not subject area to Offset Amendment defenses nor Lanham Act defenses
Courtroom membership
Master Justice William Rehnquist Acquaintance Justices William J. Brennan Jr.· Byron White Thurgood Marshall· Harry Blackmun Lewis F. Powell Jr.· John P. Stevens Sandra Solar day O'Connor· Antonin Scalia
Case opinions
Bulk	Powell, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia
Concord/dissent	O'Connor, joined by Blackmun
Dissent	Brennan, joined by Marshall
Laws applied
U.Southward. Const. amend. I

San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. 5. Usa Olympic Committee , 483 U.S. 522 (1987), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting the trademark rights of the U.s. Olympic Commission (USOC) to regulate the use of the word "Olympic" under the Amateur Sports Deed of 1978. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. (SFAA) attempted to organize a sporting events information technology called the Gay Olympic Games, and the USOC sought to enjoin the games under that name. SFAA claimed that the First Subpoena overrode the rights that the Act gave the USOC to command the word Olympic.

The Supreme Court rejected SFAA's First Amendment claim,^[1] and the SFAA renamed its event the Gay Games.

Background [edit]

Historically, both the Olympic motion as well as the United States' participation evolved without government participation, with the Apprentice Athletic Union (AAU) coordinating the U.s.a. teams. However, the AAU was criticized for its actions. The AAU had adopted capricious rules which prohibited women from participating in running events and prohibited any runner who had raced in the same effect as a runner with a shoe-company sponsorship. Congress adopted the Act in response to criticisms of the AAU, effectively removing that organization from any governance role. Accordingly, the Usa Congress chartered a The states Olympic Committee and gave it exclusive rights to coordinate United states of america participation in international competitions. In addition, the Amateur Sports Act provided:

(a) Sectional Right of Corporation.— Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the corporation has the exclusive correct to use— ... (4) the words "Olympic", "Olympiad", "Citius Altius Fortius", "Paralympic", "Paralympiad", "Pan-American", "America Espirito Sport Fraternite", or any combination of those words.^[2]

SFAA is a non-profit system that sought to organize the "Gay Olympic Games" patterned after the Olympic Games. In that location were numerous other organizations that used "Olympics" in their name, including the Junior Olympics, Special Olympics, Eskimo Olympics, and the Olympics of the Mind.^[3] SFAA used "Gay Olympics" on its letterheads and mailings, in local newspapers, and on diverse merchandise sold to cover the costs of the planned Games.^[iv] The USOC asked SFAA to stop using the word "Olympics" to name its games, and SFAA refused.^[v]

Event organizers were sued by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) under the U.S. Amateur Sports Human action of 1978, which gave the USOC exclusive rights to the word Olympic in the United States. Defendants of the lawsuit contended that the law was capriciously applied and that if the Special Olympics were not similarly prohibited, the Gay Olympics should not be either.^[vi]

Others, like Daniel Bell, cite the IOC's long history of protecting the Olympics brand as evidence that the lawsuit confronting the "Gay Olympics" was not motivated past discrimination against gays. Since 1910 the IOC has taken action, including lawsuits and expulsion from the IOC, to stop certain organizations from using the give-and-take "Olympics."^[7] Almanac "California Constabulary Olympics" were held for 22 years, from 1967 through 1989, after which, the word Olympics was no longer used for the consequence.^[8] The Supreme Court ruled for the USOC in San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. Usa Olympic Committee.

Proceedings below [edit]

In August 1982, the USOC sued SFAA in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to enjoin the SFAA's use of the word "Olympic". The District Court granted a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction against SFAA presently before the scheduled appointment of the first "Gay Olympics". The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed the District Court. After further proceedings, the District Court granted the USOC summary judgment and a permanent injunction also as ordered SFAA to pay the USOC's attorneys fees.^[v]

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Commune Court, but reversed the attorneys fee accolade, in a January 1986 ruling.^{[9] [10]} It found that the Act granted the USOC exclusive use of the word "Olympic" without requiring the USOC to evidence that the unauthorized apply was disruptive and without regard to the defenses available to an entity sued for a trademark violation under the Lanham Deed. Information technology did not reach the SFAA's contention that the USOC enforced its rights in a discriminatory style (which information technology termed a "difficult issue")^[10] considering the court institute that the USOC is not a land role player jump by the constraints of the Constitution. The courtroom likewise establish that the USOC'due south "property righ[t] [in the word 'Olympic' and its associated symbols and slogans] tin exist protected without violating the Start Subpoena."^[11]

In April 1986, the Ninth Circuit denied the SFAA'southward petition for rehearing en banc. Three judges strongly dissented with that determination, finding that the panel'southward estimation of the Deed raised serious Beginning Amendment issues.^{[ten] [12] [thirteen]} The SFAA appealed the instance to the U.South. Supreme Courtroom in August 1986.^[x]

The arguments [edit]

The Supreme Court granted certiorari;^[fourteen] it was the first explicitly homosexual rights case to exist heard earlier the Court since 1967 in the pre-Stonewall era (although the Bowers v. Hardwick sodomy laws case had been heard the yr before).^[10] The SFAA was represented before the court by openly gay San Francisco attorney Mary Dunlap.^[10] It was too represented by the American Ceremonious Liberties Marriage.^[3] The USOC was represented past well-known Washington trial lawyer Edward Bennett Williams.^[x]

During the March 24, 1987, oral arguments, the SFAA said it was denied utilize of the discussion "Olympic" due to its being a gay organization, and that the USOC equally an agent of the U.S. government could non do so.^[xv] Dunlap felt that she was likely to lose the instance going in, a pessimism that increased when her planned line of argument was derailed past questioning from the bench.^[10]

The conclusion [edit]

The opinion of the Courtroom was delivered by Justice Lewis F. Powell, joined by Justices William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia. Justices Harry Blackmun and Sandra Day O'Connor joined in Parts I, II, and 3 of the stance. Justice O'Connor joined by Justice Blackmun filed an opinion concurring and dissenting in part. Justice William J. Brennan filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Thurgood Marshall.

In the 7–two parts, the Courtroom rejected arguments that the USOC's Congressionally-authorized legal rights over apply of the word "Olympic" constituted a First Amendment violation.^[16] The Court additionally rejected the notion that the SFAA possessed a constitutional right to utilise the word "Olympics" as a verbal vehicle for portraying their view well-nigh the state of gays in America.^[16]

In the 5–4 portion, the Court denied that the USOC had violated SFAA's correct to equal protection under the laws via a discriminatory ban, vis à vis there having been many other groups staging games of diverse kinds under the moniker "Olympic".^[sixteen]

As a defence force, SFAA had claimed that an injunction was unwarranted because at that place was no likelihood of confusion between the Gay Olympics and the real Olympic Games. In response, the stance found, the "legislative history demonstrates that Congress intended to provide the USOC with exclusive control of the utilize of the word 'Olympic' without regard to whether an unauthorized use of the give-and-take tends to cause confusion."^[17] In full general, the stance found that the defenses that are normally bachelor in Lanham Human action cases do not utilise to the trademarks protected by the Amateur Sports Act.^[17] The majority argued that the USOC and the Olympic movement had devoted considerable effort over fourth dimension to build up the reputation of the Olympics that SFAA was trying to employ.^{[15] [xviii]} In rejecting SFAA'south First Amendment claim considering prohibiting the use of the "Olympics" did not prevent SFAA from conveying its message, the Court noted that SFAA was able to bear its game under a different name.^[19]

The dissent [edit]

Justice O'Connor joined by Justice Blackmun filed an opinion concurring and dissenting in part. They had joined the kickoff three parts of the majority opinion only dissented from Part IV that dealt with SFAA's claim that the injunction violated the Fifth Amendment because the USOC allowed other events to apply the word "Olympics" but refused SFAA because the athletes were gay. The majority found that the government did not command how the USOC enforced its trademark rights and that the Fifth Subpoena did non apply.^[xx] However, O'Connor and Blackmun agreed with Brennan on the equal protection claim based on the Fifth Amendment.^[21]

Justice Brennan filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Marshall. The dissent argues that "The USOC performs a distinctive, traditional governmental function: it represents this Nation to the world community."^[22] The dissent also argued that the government forced the USOC to boycott the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow was further evidence of the USOC being a state actor.^[23]

The dissent also finds the trademark provision of the Human action overly broad.^[3] "The statute is overbroad on its face up, considering it is susceptible of awarding to a substantial amount of noncommercial spoken language, and vests the USOC with unguided discretion to corroborate and disapprove others' noncommercial employ of 'Olympic'."^[24] The dissent views the injunction every bit violating SFAA'southward First Subpoena rights. The dissent noted, "Hither, the SFAA intended, by use of the word 'Olympic', to promote a realistic image of homosexual men and women that would help them move into the mainstream of their communities." Preventing the SFAA from calling its games the "Gay Olympics" prevents the SFAA from expressing this idea.^[25] The dissent besides argued that the Act regulated speech in a fashion that was not content neutral. The Act allows the USOC to endorse item not-commercial messages while prohibiting others.^[26] Appropriately, the dissent would have found for SFAA.

Aftermath [edit]

A lawyer representing the SFAA rued the ruling, noting that "Olympics" had been applied to contests involving rats and cockroaches and maxim, "I judge the moral is that if y'all're gay, in the next life you lot'd better be born a rat if yous want to use the word 'Olympic'."^[3]

Based upon the before injunction, the SFAA had renamed its projection, redoing its posters, literature, and T-shirts,^[3] and conducted the starting time Gay Games in San Francisco from August 28 to September 2, 1982. It drew one,300 people from 12 countries.^[15] Gay Games II had taken place in August 1986, and indeed among the iii,500 athletes participating in it was SFAA attorney Dunlap, a goalkeeper.^[ten] Old U.S. Olympian Tom Waddell, who was the founder of the Gay Games, died of AIDS complications on July 11, 1987, a few months after the Supreme Court decision.^[27]

The Gay Games retains many similarities with the Olympics, including the Gay Games flame which is lit at the opening ceremony.^[28] The USOC issued "Guidelines for Using Olympic Symbols, Marks, and Terminology".^[29] Although the Gay Games have been conducted in many countries since 1982, they have non tried to use the give-and-take "Olympics" in those other countries. This is consistent with the existence of special trademark laws in countries other than the The states that also give special protection to the Olympic movement.^[thirty]

In the years since the lawsuit, the Olympics and the Gay Games have set aside their initial hostilities and worked cooperatively together, successfully lobbying to have HIV travel restrictions waived for the 1994 Gay Games in New York and the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta.

A 2009 documentary film called Claiming the Title: Gay Olympics on Trial was created in the U.s. and was previewed at several film festivals.^{[31] [32]} The subject was also included in a 2005 film past David Sector, called Accept the Flame! Gay Games: Grace Grit & Glory.^[33]

See also [edit]

• List of Usa Supreme Court cases, book 483
• Listing of United States Supreme Court cases
• Lists of U.s.a. Supreme Court cases by book
• List of United States Supreme Courtroom cases by the Rehnquist Court

Further reading [edit]

• Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper (1989–1990). "Expressive Genericity: Trademarks equally Linguistic communication in the Pepsi Generation". Notre Dame Fifty. Rev. Vol. 65. p. 397. Retrieved 2011-06-08 .
• Kravitz, Robert N. (1989). "Trademarks, Speech, and the Gay Olympics Case". B.U.L.R. Vol. 69. p. 131. Retrieved 2011-06-08 .

References [edit]

1. ^ San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United states Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987). This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
2. ^ 36 U.Southward.C. § 220506(a)(4).
3. ^ ^{a b c d e} Ricardo Pimentel (June 26, 1987). "Court: No more than 'olympic' in Gay Games". The Modesto Bee. p. A3.
4. ^ 483 U.S. at 525.
5. ^ ^{a b} 483 U.S. at 527.
6. ^ Clark, Joe (1994). "Glory of the Gay Games". Retrieved January 4, 2006.
7. ^ Bell, Daniel (1998). "Why Can't the Gay Games Be the Gay Olympics?". Archived from the original on March 7, 2006. Retrieved June 12, 2010.
8. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on May 8, 2013. Retrieved 2012-12-25 . {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy equally title (link)
9. ^ Int. Olympic Com. v. San Francisco Arts & Athletics , 781 F.2d 733 (9th Cir. 1986).
10. ^ ^{a b c d eastward f chiliad h i} Joyce Murdoch; Deb Toll (2001). Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court . New York: Basic Books. pp. 366–370. ISBN978-0-465-01514-6.
11. ^ 781 F.2d at 737.
12. ^ Int. Olympic Com. 5. San Francisco Arts & Athletics , 789 F.second 1319, 1326 (ninth Cir. 1986).
13. ^ 483 U.Southward. at 527–28.
14. ^ 479 U.Southward. 913 (1986)
15. ^ ^{a b c} Glen Elsasser (June 26, 1987). "Courtroom Backs Limit On Commercial Use Of `Olympic`". Chicago Tribune.
16. ^ ^{a b c} Stuart Taylor, Jr. (June 26, 1987). "Justices Uphold U.South. Panel's Ban Against Gay Olympics Title". The New York Times.
17. ^ ^{a b} 483 U.S. at 530.
18. ^ 483 U.S. at 534.
19. ^ 483 U.Due south. at 536.
20. ^ 483 U.Due south. at 544.
21. ^ 483 U.S. at 548 (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
22. ^ 483 U.S. at 550 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
23. ^ 483 U.South. at 552.
24. ^ 483 U.S. at 561.
25. ^ 483 U.S. at 569.
26. ^ 483 U.S. at 570.
27. ^ Christopher Heredia; Dave Ford (September half-dozen, 2002). "Gearing up for Gay Games / Athletes practice with pride to set up for Sydney competition". San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved June 8, 2011.
28. ^ Andrew Bowen (July 31, 2010). "Cologne gears up to play and political party as host to Gay Games". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved July 13, 2011.
29. ^ "Olympic Symbols, Marks and Terminology Guidelines". The states Olympic Committee. Archived from the original on July 15, 2011. Retrieved June 7, 2011.
30. ^ For case, in Australia, Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 amended by the Olympic Insignia Protection Amendment Act 1994.
31. ^ "Challenge the Title: Gay Olympics on Trial". Aquarius Media. Archived from the original on May 28, 2011. Retrieved June 7, 2011.
32. ^ Challenge the Title at IMDb
33. ^ Have the Flame! Gay Games: Grace Grit & Glory at IMDb

External links [edit]

• Text of San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United states of america Olympic Commission, 483 U.South. 522 (1987) is bachelor from:CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)

boswelluntwom.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wiki.hereiszyn.com/wiki/San_Francisco_Arts_%26_Athletics,_Inc._v._United_States_Olympic_Committee

Share this post