to think the Olympics have no right to ban the words "summer" and "London"?!!

[motherofallhangovers]

"Olympics organisers have warned businesses that during London 2012 their advertising should not include a list of banned words, including "gold", "silver" and "bronze", "summer", "sponsors" and "London"." source.

And they're actually going to police this!

"Almost 300 enforcement officers will be seen across the country checking firms to ensure they are not ... illegally associating themselves with the Games"

WTF?! I feel like I've just wandered onto the set of the satire "Twenty-twelve", it's so farcical.

But no, this is real!

Don't normally do this, but this is a petition that is asking all the sponsors of the Olympic Games to pay their taxes.

secure.38degrees.org.uk/olympic-tax-dodging

Did you all see the Waterstones tweet?

Waterstones @WstonesOxfordSt

So, as we can't say the name of the big sporting event because we're not a sponsor, we shall call it Voldesport. It which cannot be named!

Think that is the way to go if you are looking to use it in advertising. Be funny, be cheeky, be creative.

Don't be daft. "Summer" and "London" etc are not banned words per se. What's banned is giving the impression that your product is officially associated with the Olympics when you are not a sponsor, which seems perfectly sensible. You can't expect sponsors to pay a fortune, and then have everyone else act as if they are sponsors. Why don't you read what the article actually says:

"Olympics organisers have warned businesses that during London 2012 their advertising should not include a list of banned words, including "gold", "silver" and "bronze", "summer", "sponsors" and "London", if they give the impression of a formal connection to the Olympics. See examples of banned and allowed advertising below"

On the whole, the examples don't seem particularly unreasonable.

So a "This summer, come and sponsor my bronze tan sesh and silver boots while I eat fifty Gold Bars in London" tee shirt would be a no then?

Well, smack me with a fish slice and call me Fred.

Irregular
It is not being daft. It is a big sporting event that is supposed to be bringing the whole country together. It is not unreasonable for shops to reference it, in the same way that many shops referenced the Jubilee.

I really enjoyed seeing how the shops all featured crowns, flags etc in the run up to the Jubilee.

'Have a golden summer with Waitrose' and a display of snacks implying that they are to be eaten during sports watching is no different, but would fall foul of these rules.

As members of the british public, we are all sponsors. And therefore can use the banned words if we like. See here
twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23imsponsoringtheolympics

I do agree that they seem to have been rather heavy handed - it is bollocks to say to a load of grannies that they can't sell 'olympic athlete' knitted toys at the school fair.

But in fairness, that article says that use of those words must not imply an official connection to the games. "Clifton Jewellery summer sale on gold and silver' is clearly nothing to do with the olympics and no issue.

PROPERTY

ALLOWED ? Stratford Mansions. 1 & 2 bedroom flats, £220,000 to £350,000; 5 minutes? walk to Stratford International Station; next to Olympic Park; 15 minutes commute to Canary Wharf.

BANNED ? Simplefields Homes. An Olympic investment not to be missed! 1 and 2 bedroom flats, luxurious fittings, 5 minutes? walk to Stratford International Station

.. ok. What about this. The banned one doesn't actually imply a connection to the games, and surely no one would think that it was from an official sponsor.

If some people are going to be able to cash in on the Olympics (ie the sponsors, big time) then why shouldn't we all?

Otherwise there will be precious few benefits for the rest of us who have to put up with the security threats like missiles on our roofs, the crowds, the noise, etc.

Or - novel idea, this - as it's a sports competition, why not just focus on the athletes and the competition, and forget the whole idea of profit. Ban sponsors; get the funding from the countries who have athletes participating. Like a picnic where everyone brings something to eat and drink.

It says:

their advertising should not include a list of banned words, including "gold", "silver" and "bronze", "summer", "sponsors" and "London", if they give the impression of a formal connection to the Olympics.

It doesn't say you can't use these words at all. I'm sure 'Cash for Gold', and 'Come here for your bronze tan this summer' are still allowed.

Slightly tangential but I was just wondering about the comment up-thread that individuals would have to cover up logos on their clothes within the exclusion zone. Does this mean that if I wear a top with "Slazenger", or (God forbid at my age) "Abercrombie and Fitch" say, on it to an Olympic event, I would have to cover up? What if all my clothes have logos. Will I be provided with a sheet of sponsor stickers to cover up with? DD will love that, if so (provided Peppa Pig is a sponsor of course).

Got a flyer from Cath Kidston today, whoever their agency is has jumped through hoops (of the non-olympic kind) to avoid mention of the Olympics

"Get set for a summer of sport, as athletes take over our capital for what's going to be a momentous sporting event"

Every company I know (I work in advertising) is going with "summer of sport." So if LOCOG send you a nasty letter you can tell them to piss off because you were talking about the Tour De France or something ike that.

It is ridiculous, as that Cath Kidston flyer shows.

The olympics can go to hell.

It's more sinister than Twenty Twelve IMO; very police state/Big Brother. Quite scary.

Also makes me want to go round central London and the Olympic park kicking, cavorting and shouting 'Gold, silver, bronze! a la the 'Jehovah' sequence in The Life of Brian.

Why is anyone surprised?

The IOC claims special tax status all over the world, equivalent to a charitable institution. Say no, and you're out.

The London games are a triumph of commerce over sport - almost impossible to get tickets even as an official (fully affiliated) umpire of your sport's national governing body, but thousands of plum seats handed out to sponsors. Team GB members roped in to excruciating adverts for sponsors - I'm thinking of Subway in particular. And the VISA thing is just wrong.

But speaking as a (technically former; my membership has lapsed now I'm a SAHM) specialist intellectual property paralegal, the IOC and BOC and LOCOG have every right to clamp down on anyone drumming up business for themselves by riding on the coattails of the actual Olympic Games. The tort of "passing off" is no joke.

'The tort of "passing off" is no joke.'

I have NO idea of what that means. But you sound very much as though you know what you're on about.

But it still sucks.

They're seriously wasting MORE money on this rubbish?! For the love of all that's holy!

So, let's see - they can't organise the security properly worth a damn, but they've managed to find enough people to be "brand police"? That says something. Not sure what but it's fucking sad.

It is deeply ironic that actions like this which are supposedly to protect the Olymoic 'brand' only end up making it look more tarnished, make those actually associated with it look foolish and make the general public even more cynical. None of us are going to imagine that Barry the butcher down the road selling his 'gold medal sausages' is in some way affiliated with the Olympics, or that if we buy his sausages and they aren't all that, we will cry, 'Now the Olympic ideal itself is corrupt in my eyes!' Try assuming that people aren't all stupid, Olympics authorities, eh?

The children in the opening ceremony have been told to buy Adidas trainers or unbranded.
Note that Adidas are not supplying them with trainers.

nobody will be allowed to enter the Olympic park wearing "political" slogans on their clothes - the example quoted was a Che Guevara shirt.
Oh how I wish I was joking.

And WHY can people not park outside their houses in teh vicinity of the games - as they have done for 50 years.

Are Cath Kidston branching out into sportswear, then?

Or is just just pretty picnic wear to take with us to a sporting related event that may or may not happen in the middle months of this year?

All this olympic rubbish is making me want to go very quickly in the opposite direction. First the tickets, then the security, now the branding, transport and tickets again. I'd rather pay to see the local schools athletics day.

Mind you, purple people might be funny to see, are they truly purple from head to toe though, if not isn't that misleading and doesn't it mean if they aren't truly purple they can't issue fines?

Well I am ready for a fight! Bring it on, corporate soul-selling slaves!

So how does it work? If the little old lady refused to take her knitted bear off sale would the purple people have had her arrested? Or would they sue her? Or did they try to confiscate it?

Once a case reaches court the Act has to be applied sensibly doesn't it? Could a judge, or jury or whoever, throw it out for being heavy-handed?

I remember people complaining about the Visa thing at the Vancouver Winter Olympics in 2010. Visa/IOC obviously didn't care then or now.