Historically, the Olympic Games rank high as one of the most effective international marketing platforms in the world, reaching billions of people in more than 200 countries and territories across the globe.[1] The International Olympic Committee (IOC), the governing body of the Olympics, capitalizes on this marketing opportunity to support the staging of the Olympic Games and to promote the development of sports worldwide by distributing more than 90 percent of its revenues to organizations throughout the Olympic Movement.[2]

Many of these organizations are the National Olympic Committees and National Paralympic Committees for the participating countries.[3] The United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) is one of the few National Olympic Committees that manages both Olympic and Paralympic activities, so it is responsible for fielding and supporting U.S. teams for the Olympic, Paralympic, Youth Olympic, Pan American, and Parapan American Games.[4] But, unlike other National Olympic Committees, the USOPC does not receive governmental funding.[5]

Through the enforcement of Olympic IP rights, the USOPC can facilitate private sponsorships that provide a primary revenue source by combatting and preventing “ambush marketing” — the unauthorized use of advertising terms to create a misleading commercial association, usually during a big event.[6] The USOPC states on its Commercial Use Guidelines page, “When others use USOPC IP without authorization, it creates a disincentive for our partners to continue funding Team USA in exchange for the right to promote that association with the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Team.”[7]This sentiment is further evidenced by the Olympics’ Rule 40, which prohibits Olympics-related words from being used by non-official sponsors during the games and even requires athletes to sever ties with non-Olympic sponsors.[8]

It is not hard to understand why the USOPC has developed a reputation for aggressively defending its intellectual property.[9] From the USOPC’s point of view, unauthorized use of words and symbols for advertising can confuse consumers into thinking brands are associated with the Olympics when those words and symbols are not.[10] The real official sponsors — brands such as Coca-Cola, Samsung, and Visa — pay a lot of money to be able to say they are “Official Team USA Sponsors.”[11] To the USOPC, every instance of a company not associated with the Olympics, but using the Olympics in advertisements, is a dilution of the Olympic brand.[12]

The USOPC has even been given special consideration and an elevated level of protection in defending its intellectual property. The statute created by the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (36 U.S.C. § 220506[13]) gives the USOPC statutory authority over various Olympic symbols, words, and emblems, and is exceptionally strong in comparison with traditional trademark rights for two reasons: (1) the USOPC does not need to prove likelihood of confusion during disputes; and (2) the USOPC is afforded all protections of the Lanham Act, while none of the traditional defenses for potential infringers are available.[14] That said, protection under the statute is limited to use of the Olympic properties in trade, and courts have stated that a First Amendment defense may be available for uses not in connection with the sale of goods.[15]            

One of the earliest enforcement actions initiated by the USOPC was brought against former Olympic decathlete, Tom Waddell, for starting a multisport competition for gay and lesbian athletes called the “Gay Olympics.”[16] The USOPC suit (San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. USOC, 483 U.S. 522, 547–48 (1987)) forced Waddell to change the name of the event to the “Gay Games” less than three weeks before the first one was held in 1982.[17] In 1987, the Supreme Court ultimately sided with the USOPC, and provided the basis for the current enhanced trademark protections, by holding that the USOPC was not required to prove that a contested use of the word “Olympic” was likely to cause confusion, and an unauthorized user of the word did not have available the normal statutory defenses.[18] Additionally, Waddell’s claim that the USOPC had enforced its rights in a discriminatory manner failed because the USOPC is not a government actor.[19] However, the Gay Games has continued to be held every four years since 1982 and has had a good working relationship with the USOPC since the 1990s.[20]

The USOPC has been known to pursue enforcement against a wide range of actors, for example, social media accounts using official Olympics hashtags, businesses with the word “Olympic” in the name, and even a group of knitters organizing a “Ravelympics.”[21] In most of these cases, the USOPC sends cease and desist letters,[22] although it is not afraid to take more serious action. In February 2021, the USOPC filed a complaint against Puma for infringing and ambushing on certain marks and causing confusion among consumers from advertisements utilizing the Puma branding in connection with USOPC-owned trademarks, such as “Tokyo 2021.”[23] In July 2024, the USOPC filed suit against energy drink company, PRIME, and YouTube stars, Logan Paul and KSI, for trademark infringement of phrases and symbols associated with the 2024 Paris Olympics, including “Olympic,” “Olympian,” “Team USA,” and Going for Gold.”[24] It is noted that if the USOPC does not enforce its trademark rights, then the strength and value of the intellectual property would be reduced or lost, so any unauthorized use of a trademark, or a use that is confusingly similar to a trademark owned by USOPC, is enforced in some manner to avoid loss of USOPC trademark rights.

Intellectual property protection, such as trademark and copyright protection, allows the USOPC to preserve iconography related to the Olympics and prevent confusion of the general public, keeping the flame of the Olympics alive. The USOPC relies on such intellectual property protection to fund a greater overall Olympic movement, and so must take strong measures to enforce it.

Special thanks to James Chard, summer associate in our Chicago office, for his contributions to this article.

---

[1] https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2012/03/article_0003.html

[2] Id.

[3] See https://www.usopc.org/about-the-usopc

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] ; https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/18/olympic-lawyers-go-for-gold-in-trademark-protection.html

[7] https://www.usopc.org/commercial-and-brand-usage-guidelines

[8] https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/18/olympic-lawyers-go-for-gold-in-trademark-protection.html

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] ; ; https://olympics.com/en/paris-2024/committee/games-stakeholder/partners

[12] https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/18/olympic-lawyers-go-for-gold-in-trademark-protection.html

[13] ; https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/08/03/u-s-olympic-paralympic-committee-gold-standard-trademark-protection/id=136294/#

[14] ; https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/522/

[15] Id.

[16] https://www.outsports.com/2011/8/8/4051664/moment-56-supreme-court-rules-against-gay-games-in-use-of-olympics/

[17] Id.

[18] S.F. Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. USOC, 483 U.S. 522, 530 (1987).

[19] Id. at 547.

[20] https://www.outsports.com/2011/8/8/4051664/moment-56-supreme-court-rules-against-gay-games-in-use-of-olympics/

[21] https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/18/olympic-lawyers-go-for-gold-in-trademark-protection.html

[22] Id.

[23] https://www.sportico.com/law/news/2021/puma-declared-war-1234623339/

[24] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/07/22/logan-paul-prime-energy-drink-olympic-lawsuit/74502244007/

From the start of the modern Olympic Games, swimming has not only demonstrated athletic excellence but has also mirrored advancements in fashion and technology. Competitive swimwear has evolved significantly, embracing the latest performance-enhancing innovations.

Swimsuits

From the beginning of competitive swimming in the Olympics to the early 1990s, swimwear gradually moved in the direction of suits with less material, making movement in the water easier. Starting in 1992, companies like Speedo began developing drag-reducing fabrics, and consequently, swimmers began opting for greater coverage in swimsuits to increase drag-reduction as much as possible. This increased coverage continued though the early 2000s, when swimsuit manufacturers eventually produced full-body suits — until these suits were banned by the Olympics, and swimmers returned to wearing the greatest coverage suit in which they were allowed to compete.

Prior to the inclusion of swimming in the Olympics in 1896, swimwear, or “bathing costumes,” followed the fashion of the times, consisting of long dresses, stockings or bloomers, and shoes for women and one-piece knee-length wool rompers for men (). In the years prior to women’s Olympic swimming events, swimwear designs gradually shifted to offer less coverage and fewer layers. Men’s suits, however, remained largely unchanged during this period, with some color and style updates based on what was trending. When swimming was added to the Olympics, only men were allowed to swim, and they competed wearing the one-piece wool rompers, which became very heavy when wet.

Starting in 1912, women were allowed to swim at the Olympic Games in the 100-meter freestyle and the 4×100-meter freestyle relay (). Men’s and women’s swimsuits were very similar by this time, consisting of a romper-style suit made from silk to reduce drag. However, the material became sheer when wet, leading to swimmers wearing underwear under swimsuits for added modesty ().

In 1924, suits designed specifically for women were released that included a built-in skirt to cover the hips (). The material was also changed to eliminate the problem of the suits becoming sheer when wet, although it was still made from silk ().

Swimwear began trending towards modern-day swimwear in 1928, with the release of Speedo’s first racerback swimsuit (). This suit created some controversy due to its decreased coverage, which came to a head at the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics when Claire Dennis wore the racer-back swimsuit, and many thought the suit was too revealing due to the low-cut back exposing her shoulders. The controversy almost prevented her from competing in all of her races (). At this time, male Olympians still preferred the classic tank-and-shorts style.

At the 1936 Berlin Olympics, men were allowed to compete bare-chested, after the release of a new swim short design for men (). This was the beginning of the trend towards the modern-day well-known version of the “Speedo” suit, a barely-there brief-style swimsuit bottom.

In the 1940s, the brief-style swimsuit gained popularity among men as suit styles trended towards less material for both men and women. At the 1948 London Olympics, the brief-style suits were popular among male Olympians (), but women’s suits had not changed significantly from the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

In the 1950s, new materials were introduced in swimsuit manufacturing. Manufacturers began to include nylon in their suits, which provided a tighter fit and reduced drag in the water (). In 1964, swimsuits became tighter and shorter (), and were produced in a variety of colors.

Beginning in 1976, compression suits, known as “paper suits,” because of the papery feel of the swimsuits, were introduced. The compression suits were designed to fit exceptionally tight, thereby reducing drag and increasing speed (). At this time, manufacturers also began producing suits with detailed patterns, which became popular among swimmers.

Throughout the 1980s, swimsuits for women became higher cut in the leg and featured thinner straps. Manufacturers also started incorporating elastane into the nylon fabric to increase elasticity and allow for an even tighter fit (). These changes aimed for increased speed through better movement and decreased drag.

In the following years, technological advancements led to a speed race in swimsuit manufacturing, broken records, and controversy. Speedo released a new suit called the “S2000” in 1992, which promised a 15 percent reduction in water resistance (). This suit kicked off the rapid development of faster and faster swimsuits.

In 1996, Speedo released the “Aquablade” for the Atlanta Olympics. This new suit had increased coverage to help with speed and reducing drag, which marked the start of the trend towards competition swimsuits with more coverage (). In 2000, Speedo released their most technologically advanced suit yet, modeled after sharkskin and incorporating compression and ridges in the fabric and construction (). This suit led to the development of other similar products over the next four years, such as the “Powerskin” by Arena ().

Continuing the trend of full-body compression suits, Adidas launched JetConcept in 2003 (). In 2004, Arena launched an updated “Powerskin” suit called “Powerskin X-treme” and Speedo released the “Fastskin FSII,” both designed to reduce drag while maintaining range of movement () ().

The next major development in swimsuit technology came in 2008, with the release of Speedo’s patented “LZR Racer” swimsuit. This new swimsuit incorporated the non-textile material polyurethane into the nylon and elastane fabric and had ultrasonically welded seams. The patented swimsuit was structurally designed to compress a swimmer’s body and thereby improve performance by reducing surface and form drag and improve buoyancy and stability in the water (U.S. Patent No. 8286262). It features a base layer that covers the swimmer’s torso and legs and additional panels that are laminated on the outer surface of the base layer (U.S. Patent No. 8286262). This suit extraordinarily reduced drag in the water and lead to significant controversy as the suit was compared to “technical doping” ().

In 2009, the first swimsuits made entirely of non-textile materials were released. These suits were largely worn at the 2009 World Championships, where 43 world records were broken, primarily attributed to the new swimsuits ().

As a result, the International Swimming Federation (FINA) banned all non-textile materials and full-body swimsuits. FINA also put forth regulations as to how much coverage is allowed for both men’s and women’s swimsuits (). These regulations, while limiting, have not yet entirely prevented technological developments to competition swimsuits.

In 2020, Arena released the “Carbon” suit, utilizing carbon fiber and elastane to better balance compression and flexibility (). TYR’s swimsuit patented in 2022 features an intricate network of tension bands disposed interior [MJA1] to the external surface of the swimsuit and a plurality of reinforcement liners as well as strategically positioned ridges and drains to prevent water intrusion from being retained within the suit components (U.S. Patent No.11,246,357). TYR patented another swimsuit in 2023, featuring a seamless back and a network of tension bands to optimize motion, posture, and water flow over and off the swimsuit (U.S. Patent No. 11,751,610).

Undeterred by the ban on its record-breaking “LZR Racer” swimsuit, Speedo has continued to seek ways to engineer swimsuits that help swimmers move faster. Speedo’s latest breakthrough.the “Fastskin LZR,”is its most water repellent suit yet, thanks to patented water repellency technology developed by Lamoral, a company that developed coatings for protecting satellites from corrosion in space (). The “Fastskin LZR” suit was approved by World Aquatics and was worn by Team USA swimmers vying for gold at the Paris Olympics ().

Caps and Goggles

Swimsuits are not the only gear considered essential by competitive swimmers. Bathing caps have been used for centuries to protect the wearer’s hair, but in the 1920s, the invention of latex allowed for the creation of tighter fitting and more stretchy bathing caps, leading to the swim caps popular today (). The use and development of swim caps tapered off during World War II, as the materials used for swim caps were needed for the war effort.

 In the 1980s and 90s, the production of swim caps for competition greatly increased, as there was a renewed interest in the sport of swimming (). Today, swim caps are still popular among competitive swimmers and are made from materials like latex and silicon, available in many styles and colors.

 Goggles are the other piece of equipment considered essential by most competitive swimmers. The first-ever produced goggles did not have lenses and were therefore minimally effective in protecting the wearer’s eyes from the water. Over the years, swimmers began using motorcycle goggles to provide more protection, and worked to waterproof them. In 1935, Walter G. Farrell patented a goggle design called “Underwater eye protector” (). Eventually, mass production of goggles began around the 1970s. 

By 1972, most swimmers were using goggles in practice, and some were starting to use them in competition. At this time, advancements were being made to reduce fog and add UV protection (). In 1976, goggles were approved to be used by swimmers in the Olympics (). In the 1990s, goggles became accepted across the sport and further advancements were made in comfort, UV protection, and anti-fog technology.

The next major advancement in goggle technology was in 2017, when TheMagic5 created a new 3D-printed goggle design customizable for each swimmer to provide optimal fit (). Advancements in sports technology have largely led to the integration of smart sensors in sports gear. In 2019, Form released a set of smart swim goggles that provide training stats on a heads-up display ().

 The technological advancements made to swimwear and gear and the changing styles have allowed for enhanced competition and displays of personal style through swimsuits, caps, and goggles.

 A special thanks to Emma Leider for her contributions to this article.