The USOC distroyed our idea...

They own the mark so it seems pretty cut and dried to me. The fact they cared about your use of it shows your event is substantial, but they are well within their rights as trademark and copyright holders. They pay a LOT of money in marketing the event. A lot.

If you are parodying their mark, that hurts their image. Now would you be able to stand for that if you were spending MILLIONS of dollars trying to promote it in a positive light? I don't think you would agree to that.

Try to think about the situation from their point of view and you might understand it. If you're free to parody their mark without recompense or recourse, what's to stop ANYONE from disregarding copyright/trademark law?

I'm appalled by the absurdity of the USOC 'muzzling' people and severely limiting usage of its name, links and information. It's shameful. However, I don't agree that it was okay of you and your "small non-profit" to use their logo for your own ends. Sorry.

----
Powerpoint is not a design application
My latest web design work

I understand about using a brand and their logos and trademarks. Point in fact is that we didn't use the word O-----cs, neither we used the logo as it is know at all but our own version of it, that's why is a parody.

I remember Warhol using Campbell's soup for his art, and he did use the logo. Campbell's took it as piece of art and didn't get upset. Now our parody is a representation of the event as it is mentioned, not to ridicule but to pretend is the great event.

I think of it as if I created a SUPER Heroe, and call it SuperD, Should I expect a letter from DC comics saying that the Superheroe arena is owned by them and more with a name like Superman?

I think it has been several years, by standards of copyright, where the O word has really become a genericized trademark (generic trade mark, generic descriptor, or proprietary eponym, is a trademark or brand name that has become the colloquial or generic description for or synonymous with a particular class of product or service.) just like Kleenex.

Do you think is o.k. for the USOC to tell you that you cannot say Olympic proportions because is trademarked?

And...http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcopyright4.htm

A close link between a mark and the associated product is essential. That's why Andy Warhol could paint pictures of Campbell's soup cans without violating Campbell's trademark rights. Campbell's owns rights in its marks with regard to selling soup. They can't stop someone from using his or her creative skills to create an image of a soup can in general, or a Campbell's soup can in particular. Warhol was selling a painting, a creative work, not soup.

If your artworks weren't a parody but referring to something else entirely, you may have had a legal leg to stand on according to this interpretation.

----
Powerpoint is not a design application
My latest web design work

When Saturday Night Live (an NBC program) chooses to do a sketch targeting NBC or NBC programming and they use the NBC logo, they modify it ever so slightly.

Hey thanks for your replies. I like conversation that spruces many view points. I think I have legal standing if I wanted to pursue it. At this point this post is more of a way for me to vent my frustration. We actually changed our image and idea as we thought it was absurd and ridiculous but we do not have the time to push this issue, the event is happening in two weeks.

In any case as a descriptor tell me if they had any merit in contacting us: The event is to make it seem as a sports tournament, but it is an award ceremony where we feature graphic designers and ad agencies. We thought of doing so in the tune of the Olympiad (actually I can use this word but not the one ending in 'pics') And we used five circles with different colors and different sizes of each circle. That's why we got contacted.

We are not promoting a sport competition, nor an international competition, and it is quite obvious because of the use of the circles that it is a parody to the real logo, but is is not the logo itself.

That's all. I thank you or your comments and for the references.

I think some of the copyright laws and how they're enforced are absurd at times.

Take T-Mobile's trademarking of the COLOR magenta.

I believe, however, that it's trademark use is in the context of mobile phone businesses (and I believe it may be limited to Germany). But it's still just a bizarre concept to me to trademark a COLOR. Can you imagine the absurdity if some seafood restaurant trademarked the use of the color blue? They could have an excuse then to take legal actions against other seafood restaurants using the color blue in their marketing materials.

Here's an alternative view on the magenta trademark.

Like many laws out there, they seem to be double-edged swords. It helps one entity while it may harm others.

It's interesting to me, though, that the Olympics is taking such interest in your parody. You must not have changed it enough? Perhaps you should take other parodies of the Olympics as an example. Note how Blades of Glory devised an olympics-feeling logo... I wonder if they got sued for it? You'd think a big production like that with very obvious Olympic undertones would have the Olympics committee keeping a keen eye on them for any slip-ups. I'm sure they likely did everything they could to avoid a lawsuit from the USOC when creating that film, which is a blatantly obvious parody.

I think you might be confused about the meaning of the words theme and parody.

In the children's theme party example that you cited, you are purchasing Sesame Street promotional materials approved by the Children's Television Workshop (CTW) for that very purpose. It's perfectly okay for you to use these things for the party. That's why they're being sold, for heaven's sake! Duh!

Your event is not such a theme party, using Olympics paraphernalia sold for the purpose of throwing an Olympics party. You are also not presenting a parody of the Olympic Games. You are simply ripping off the Olympics identity for your own contest. That is not a parody. Please look up "parody" in the dictionary. The intention has to be to poke fun at the subject in a specific context. Just imitating them doesn't constitute parody. It constitutes plagiarism. I realize that the distinction may be subtle, but most people, I assure you, know the difference.

Here's an example that might illustrate the difference.

A comedian who is well-known for his political satire (let's say it's Jon Stewart) stands in front of an audience, dressed like Hilary Clinton, complete with a blond wig, expensive designer suit, big smile, the whole bit. He then proceeds to quote something she has recently said, something that was broadcast on the news about how truthful she is being with the voters, and he does it with slight exaggerations of her voice to make it sound as if she means something quite different from what she's actually saying. The result is uproariously funny and the audience goes bonkers. That's parody.

This is not: A woman who looks a lot like Hilary Clinton gets her hair styled just like her, has it dyed to match, has a tailor make her a suit just like one Clinton is known to own, and, using a voice just like Clinton's she goes into a fancy restuarant with several friends dressed up as PR toadies. She doesn't actually claim to be Hilary Clinton, but is delighted when the restaurant staff thinks she is, and provides her and her "staff" with a free meal and extra-good service. That is NOT parody.

Your event falls somewhere between these two extremes, which is a very uncomfortable place to be.

I don't know dude. I'd talk to a lawyer.