The Winter Olympics: Trademark Law, Commercial Control and the Athlete Influencer Era

The 2026 Winter Olympics appears to be a celebration of sporting excellence and international unity but underneath the spectacle lies one of the most sophisticated intellectual property (IP) ecosystems. From the logo of five interlocking rings to the mascots and uniform designs, the Games are underpinned by an intricate legal framework of trademark, copyright, design and contracts. Paul Cosmovici, Managing Partner of Cosmovici Intellectual Property, stated that the “five Olympic rings, torch medals, flag, motto” and other identifications like the phrase ‘Olympic Games’ are “more than merely marketing tools, they are identifications that are protected” and owned by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). 

This article will explore the heavy trademarking infrastructure surrounding the Winter Olympics and the highly controlled commercial environment created as a result. The rise of athlete-generated social media content has added another layer of complexity in the last decade, creating tension for commercial lawyers navigating the point at which athlete posts cross the line from personal expression into unauthorised commercial use of Olympic rights. 

The IOC controls a vast global IP portfolio which, once the selection process for the host city is completed, can be accessed by the host city for marketing, commercial partnerships and generating revenue. This process begins years in advance, often during the bidding process which determines the country hosting the Games. For instance, Cosmovici’s 2022 article notes that by the end of 2022, trademarks were registered for Milano Cortina 2026, Paris 2024, Los Angeles 2028 and Brisbane 2032. This demonstrates the level of planning that is required, given the restrictive IP framework governing the Games. The structure enables a commercial ecosystem which involves sponsors, media partners and broadcasters who pay significant amounts of money for exclusive access. 

A recent Financial Times report on the multimillion-dollar business of the Milano Cortina opening ceremony illustrates how even the opening ceremony of each Games is a carefully crafted product of IP law. Balich Wonder Studio, the Italian event management company responsible for producing the opening ceremony, has undertaken a major business investment within this role. The opening ceremony is a blend of copyrighted artistic works, from the likes of Giorgio Armani to songs from Puccini’s operas alongside the trademarked logos and design rights of the Games itself. An article from Foley & Lardner LLP discusses the stakes of the Opening Ceremony, noting that the for the costumes which often rely on “digitally printed textiles”, much of the "underlying utility intellectual property" is "held by textile manufacturers rather than the fashion designers or being an Olympic Property". This highlights the multiple layers of ownership embedded within the Olympic trademarking framework. The same can be said for photography rights where “robust IP protection is critical”. The host country has to be careful to deter risks like “fast-fashion copying” and help preserve exclusive rights to the trademarking involved. The business of broadcast rights is an added factor here and “remains the largest revenue source for the International Olympic Committee”. This cost IOC’s official European broadcast partner Warner Bros. Discovery around “€1.75bn in rights fees”, and this includes the cost of the rights to broadcast Olympic trademarks.

Moreover, in the digital age of expanding social media platforms like TikTok, athletes at the Winter Olympics are more than competitors; they are powerful influencers with personal audiences. This evident in the case of US figure skater Alysa Liu whose touching story of a return to skating after retiring in 2022 has captured the internet. However, a recent article from Elle titled ‘The $24 Lip Stain Behind Alysa Liu’s Winning Smile’ focused not on her athletic performance but on advertising Rare Beauty’s products at Sephora. This aligns with a wider shift since COVID-19 of brands accelerating towards influencer marketing by encouraging personal content creators to market their products. A DLA Piper article written on influencer marketing in 2025 notes that “influencer marketing is now a cornerstone of brand strategy” and provides legal advice for influencers on the powers of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) which regulates influencer marketing. However, in the case of Liu, she is not an influencer but an athlete, meaning any content posted in relation to the Games has the added factor of rigid Olympic trademarking structure. 

Historically, Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter controversially restricted athletes from appearing in advertising during a blackout period just before and after the Games, unless granted permission from the IOC. This was designed to prevent issues like ambush marketing, where a company cleverly gains attention during a large event without official sponsoring rights, and protect sponsor exclusivity. This rule was reformed in 2019, largely due to the rise of social media, with Team GB now offering specific guidance for the Milano Cortina 2026 Games in regard to “the ways in which athletes (and their sponsors) can use their image or attributes in advertising” from 30 January 2026 to 24 February 2026. Violations of this rule are met with strict repercussions including financial penalties and even the possibility of losing eligibility for future Games. Emphasis is placed on advertising being allowed so long as it only runs generic brands using no Olympic trademarked symbols but sharing athlete recognition content containing balanced and factual references. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine how “generic” athlete and company interactions actually are in regard to content like the recently mentioned Elle article.

The Winter Olympics has evolved into what has aptly been described as the “largest world-known intellectual property rights show”. Whether this discusses the high budget opening and closing ceremonies or the billion-dollar broadcast agreements, the Games are underpinned by rigid trademark law. The rise of athlete content which increasingly borders on influencer content is pushing this commercial ecosystem and arguably requires new legislation to understand this boundary and protect the exclusive rights to Olympic trademarking.