Recently, the Chinese company Xiamen Olymate Import and Export Co. Ltd. and its affiliates (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) suffered a setback in a US federal court in California, where they were temporarily barred from using Olympic-related trademarks. This follows a lawsuit filed by the International Olympic Committee (hereinafter referred to as the IOC) against the company for using Olympic symbols to market products claimed to have health benefits.

On 3 June 2026, Judge Christina Snyder of the US District Court for the Central District of California issued a preliminary injunction, ruling that the defendants must not refer to the Olympic Games or use any Olympic symbols, and must include a disclaimer on all websites and product materials stating that they are not affiliated with the Olympic Games. Judge Snyder noted that the defendant’s use of the Olympic rings and the term ‘Olympic’ in its marketing materials was likely to mislead consumers into believing an association with the Olympic Games.

This ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by the IOC in January 2026. The IOC alleges that the defendants (including the Malaysian entity OlyLife International Sdn. Bhd.) are an international multi-level marketing organisation that sells products such as pulsed electromagnetic field therapy devices, terahertz light wave devices and hydrogen-rich water cups under the registered “OlyLife” trademark, and creates a false association by using slogans such as “OlyLife passionately means live an Olympic Life!” alongside the Olympic rings. The IOC emphasised that the defendants had not obtained any Olympic sponsorship rights and that failure to stop them would cause irreparable damage to its reputation.

The defendants argued that “Oly” was not an abbreviation of “Olympics”, but rather an independently created name. However, Judge Snyder ruled that the defendants’ use of the Olympic rings and the term “Olympic” clearly violated the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (OASA). This Act grants the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee the right to seek remedies under the Lanham Act. However, the judge also noted that, if stripped of their direct association with the Olympic Games, “OlyLife” and other “Oly-” branded logos might not in themselves constitute an infringement; yet the defendant’s current manner of use was sufficient to cause confusion as to source.

The judge considered that the IOC had a strong case regarding the use of the Olympic rings and the word “Olympic”, but did not grant an injunction against the “OlyLife” mark on its own. Ultimately, the court found that the IOC would suffer irreparable harm due to reputational damage and therefore granted the preliminary injunction.