San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee

Last updated

San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 24, 1987
Decided June 25, 1987
Full case nameSan Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee
Citations483 U.S. 522 ( more )
107 S. Ct. 2971; 97 L. Ed. 2d 427; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2895
Case history
PriorSummary judgment for respondent granted, 219 U.S.P.Q. 982 (N.D. Cal., 1982); affirmed, 781 F.2d 733 (9th Cir. 1986), rehearing denied, 789 F.2d 1319; cert. granted, 479 U.S. 913(1986).
Holding
USOC's right to control the use of the word "Olympic" is not subject to First Amendment defenses nor Lanham Act defenses
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor  · Antonin Scalia
Case opinions
MajorityPowell, joined by Rehnquist, White, Stevens, Scalia
Concur/dissentO'Connor, joined by Blackmun
DissentBrennan, joined by Marshall
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

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

Contents

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

Background

Historically, both the Olympic movement as well as the United States' participation evolved without government participation, with the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) coordinating the United States teams. However, the AAU was criticized for its actions. The AAU had adopted arbitrary rules which prohibited women from participating in running events and prohibited any runner who had raced in the same event 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 United States Congress chartered a United States Olympic Committee and gave it exclusive rights to coordinate United States participation in international competitions. In addition, the Amateur Sports Act provided:

(a) Exclusive Right of Corporation.— Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the corporation has the exclusive right 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 organization that sought to organize the "Gay Olympic Games" patterned after the Olympic Games. There 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 various merchandise sold to cover the costs of the planned Games. [4] The USOC asked SFAA to stop using the word "Olympics" to name its games, and SFAA refused. [5]

Event organizers were sued by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) under the U.S. Amateur Sports Act 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. [6]

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

Proceedings below

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 shortly before the scheduled date of the first "Gay Olympics". The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court. After further proceedings, the District Court granted the USOC summary judgment and a permanent injunction as well as ordered SFAA to pay the USOC's attorneys fees. [5]

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court, but reversed the attorneys fee award, 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 prove that the unauthorized use was confusing and without regard to the defenses available to an entity sued for a trademark violation under the Lanham Act. It did not reach the SFAA's contention that the USOC enforced its rights in a discriminatory manner (which it termed a "difficult issue") [10] because the court found that the USOC is not a state actor bound by the constraints of the Constitution. The court also found that the USOC's "property righ[t] [in the word 'Olympic' and its associated symbols and slogans] can be protected without violating the First Amendment." [11]

In April 1986, the Ninth Circuit denied the SFAA's petition for rehearing en banc. Three judges strongly dissented with that decision, finding that the panel's interpretation of the Act raised serious First Amendment issues. [10] [12] [13] The SFAA appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court in August 1986. [10]

The arguments

The Supreme Court granted certiorari; [14] it was the second explicitly homosexual rights case to be heard before the Court since 1967 in the pre-Stonewall era (although the Bowers v. Hardwick sodomy laws case had been heard the year before). [10] The SFAA was represented before the court by openly gay San Francisco attorney Mary C. Dunlap. [10] It was also represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. [3] The USOC was represented by well-known Washington trial lawyer Edward Bennett Williams. [10]

During the March 24, 1987, oral arguments, the SFAA said it was denied use of the word "Olympic" due to its being a gay organization, and that the USOC as an agent of the U.S. government could not do so. [15] Dunlap felt that she was likely to lose the case going in, a pessimism that increased when her planned line of argument was derailed by questioning from the bench. [10]

The decision

The opinion of the Court 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 III of the opinion. 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 7–2 parts, the Court rejected arguments that the USOC's Congressionally-authorized legal rights over use of the word "Olympic" constituted a First Amendment violation. [16] The Court additionally rejected the notion that the SFAA possessed a constitutional right to use the word "Olympics" as a verbal vehicle for portraying their view about the state of gays in America. [16]

In the 5–4 portion, the Court denied that the USOC had violated SFAA's right to equal protection under the laws via a discriminatory ban, vis à vis there having been many other groups staging games of various kinds under the moniker "Olympic". [16]

As a defense, SFAA had claimed that an injunction was unwarranted because there was no likelihood of confusion between the Gay Olympics and the real Olympic Games. In response, the opinion found, the "legislative history demonstrates that Congress intended to provide the USOC with exclusive control of the use of the word 'Olympic' without regard to whether an unauthorized use of the word tends to cause confusion." [17] In general, the opinion found that the defenses that are normally available in Lanham Act cases do not apply 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 time to build up the reputation of the Olympics that SFAA was trying to use. [15] [18] In rejecting SFAA's First Amendment claim because prohibiting the use of the "Olympics" did not prevent SFAA from conveying its message, the Court noted that SFAA was able to conduct its game under a different name. [19]

The dissent

Justice O'Connor joined by Justice Blackmun filed an opinion concurring and dissenting in part. They had joined the first three parts of the majority opinion but dissented from Part IV that dealt with SFAA's claim that the injunction violated the Fifth Amendment because the USOC allowed other events to use the word "Olympics" but refused SFAA because the athletes were gay. The majority found that the government did not control how the USOC enforced its trademark rights and that the Fifth Amendment did not apply. [20] 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 Act overly broad. [3] "The statute is overbroad on its face, because it is susceptible of application to a substantial amount of noncommercial speech, and vests the USOC with unguided discretion to approve and disapprove others' noncommercial use of 'Olympic'." [24] The dissent views the injunction as violating SFAA's First Amendment rights. The dissent noted, "Here, 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 also argued that the Act regulated speech in a manner that was not content neutral. The Act allows the USOC to endorse particular non-commercial messages while prohibiting others. [26] Accordingly, the dissent would have found for SFAA.

Aftermath

U.S. Olympic Committee headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colorado. US Olympic Committee Headquarters by David Shankbone.jpg
U.S. Olympic Committee headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

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

Based upon the earlier injunction, the SFAA had renamed its project, redoing its posters, literature, and T-shirts, [3] and conducted the first Gay Games in San Francisco from August 28 to September 2, 1982. It drew 1,300 people from 12 countries. [15] Gay Games II had taken place in August 1986, and indeed among the 3,500 athletes participating in it was SFAA attorney Dunlap, a goalkeeper. [10] Former 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 not tried to use the word "Olympics" in those other countries. This is consistent with the existence of special trademark laws in countries other than the United States that also give special protection to the Olympic movement. [30]

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 United States and was previewed at several film festivals. [31] [32] The subject was also included in a 2005 film by David Sector, called Take the Flame! Gay Games: Grace Grit & Glory. [33]

See also

Further reading

Related Research Articles

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States generally protected a right to have an abortion. The decision struck down many abortion laws, and caused an ongoing abortion debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be. The decision also shaped debate concerning which methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication. The Supreme Court overruled Roe in 2022, ending the constitutional right to abortion.

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the right to have an abortion as established by the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade (1973) and issued as its "key judgment" the restoration of the undue burden standard when evaluating state-imposed restrictions on that right. Both the essential holding of Roe and the key judgment of Casey were overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, with its landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults, in this case with respect to homosexual sodomy, though the law did not differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual sodomy. It was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), though the statute had already been struck down by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1998.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harry Blackmun</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1970 to 1994

Harry Andrew Blackmun was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1970 to 1994. Appointed by President Richard Nixon, Blackmun ultimately became one of the most liberal justices on the Court. He is best known as the author of the Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 1987.

Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), was a case in the United States Supreme Court that upheld Department of Health and Human Services regulations prohibiting employees in federally funded family-planning facilities from counseling a patient on abortion. The department had removed all family planning programs that involving abortions. Physicians and clinics challenged this decision within the Supreme Court, arguing that the First Amendment was violated due to the implementation of this new policy. The Supreme Court, by a 5–4 verdict, allowed the regulation to go into effect, holding that the regulation was a reasonable interpretation of the Public Health Service Act, and that the First Amendment is not violated when the government merely chooses to "fund one activity to the exclusion of another".

Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the First Amendment, specifically whether the protection of the First Amendment extends to government employees who make extremely critical remarks about the President. The Court ruled that, while direct threats on the President's life would not be protected speech, a comment — even an unpopular or seemingly extreme one — made on a matter of public interest and spoken by a government employee with no policymaking function and a job with little public interaction, would be protected.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 22, 1989. The court held that a state government agency's failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's right to liberty for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the Court held that States and their officials acting in their official capacity are not persons when sued for monetary damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that states participating in Medicaid are not required to fund medically necessary abortions for which federal reimbursement was unavailable as a result of the Hyde Amendment, which restricted the use of federal funds for abortion. The Court also held that the funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment did not violate the Fifth Amendment or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The 1982 Gay Games were held in San Francisco, California, United States from August 28 – September 5, 1982. They were the first Gay Games, an event officially conceived by Tom Waddell, an athlete and activist, along with the help of many others. The event's goal was to promote the acceptance and inclusion of gay, lesbian and transgender athletes in the athletic world and celebrate their abilities and achievements. A total of 1,350 competitors from over 170 cities globally participated in the first Gay Games and the 9 day event attracted an estimated 10,000 people.

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 509 U.S. 1 (1993), was a case before the United States Supreme Court.

Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (1978), was a 1978 United States Supreme Court case in which the Court refused to recognize a "right of access", under the First Amendment, to interview particular prisoners.

Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the ordinance by the town of Brookfield, Wisconsin, preventing protest outside of a residential home. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that the First Amendment rights to freedom of assembly and speech was not facially violated. The majority opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, concluded that the ordinance was constitutionally valid because it was narrowly tailored to meet a "substantial and justifiable" interest in the state; left open "ample alternative channels of communication"; and was content-neutral.

County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which involved the question of within what period of time must a suspect arrested without a warrant be brought into court to determine if there is probable cause for holding the suspect in custody. The majority held that suspects must generally be granted a probable cause determination within 48 hours of arrest. The dissent believed that probable cause hearings should generally be provided much sooner, as soon as the police complete the administrative steps incident to arrest.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with equal rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Bank Secrecy Act, passed by Congress in 1970 requiring banks to record all transactions and report certain domestic and foreign transactions of high-dollar amounts to the United States Treasury, did not violate the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18–302, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a Supreme Court of the United States case related to the registration of trademarks under the Lanham Act. It decided 6–3 that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks of "immoral" or "scandalous" matter is unconstitutional by permitting the United States Patent & Trademark Office to engage in viewpoint discrimination, which violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Friedman et al. v. Rogers et al., 440 U.S. 1 (1979) was a Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Texas law, the Texas Optometry Act, which prohibited optometrists from using trade names for commercial purposes and which requires that 4/6 of the members of the Texas Optometry Board be members of the Texas Optometric Association is constitutional. In its decision the Supreme Court overruled the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas's ruling in that prohibition against trade name was an unnecessary and unjustified stifling of First Amendment Commercial speech. The decision further upheld a State's Tenth Amendment right to control and regulate their professional licensing boards and organizations.

References

  1. ↑ San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ↑ 36 U.S.C. § 220506(a)(4).
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Ricardo Pimentel (June 26, 1987). "Court: No more 'olympic' in Gay Games". The Modesto Bee . p. A3.
  4. ↑ 483 U.S. at 525.
  5. 1 2 483 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. ↑ "History". Archived from the original on May 8, 2013. Retrieved 2012-12-25.
  9. ↑ Int. Olympic Com. v. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, 781F.2d733 (9th Cir.1986).
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Joyce Murdoch; Deb Price (2001). Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court . New York: Basic Books. pp.  366–370. ISBN   978-0-465-01514-6.
  11. ↑ 781 F.2d at 737.
  12. ↑ Int. Olympic Com. v. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, 789F.2d1319 , 1326(9th Cir.1986).
  13. ↑ 483 U.S. at 527–28.
  14. ↑ 479 U.S. 913 (1986)
  15. 1 2 3 Glen Elsasser (June 26, 1987). "Court Backs Limit On Commercial Use Of 'Olympic'". Chicago Tribune .
  16. 1 2 3 Stuart Taylor Jr. (June 26, 1987). "Justices Uphold U.S. Panel's Ban Against Gay Olympics Title". The New York Times .
  17. 1 2 483 U.S. at 530.
  18. ↑ 483 U.S. at 534.
  19. ↑ 483 U.S. at 536.
  20. ↑ 483 U.S. 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.S. 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 6, 2002). "Gearing up for Gay Games / Athletes practice with pride to prepare for Sydney competition". San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved June 8, 2011.
  28. ↑ Andrew Bowen (July 31, 2010). "Cologne gears up to play and party as host to Gay Games". Deutsche Welle . Retrieved July 13, 2011.
  29. ↑ "Olympic Symbols, Marks and Terminology Guidelines". United States Olympic Committee. Archived from the original on July 15, 2011. Retrieved June 7, 2011.
  30. ↑ For example, in Australia, Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 amended by the Olympic Insignia Protection Amendment Act 1994.
  31. ↑ "Claiming the Title: Gay Olympics on Trial". Aquarius Media. Archived from the original on May 28, 2011. Retrieved June 7, 2011.
  32. ↑ Claiming the Title at IMDb
  33. ↑ Take the Flame! Gay Games: Grace Grit & Glory at IMDb
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.