## Facts

- O-M Bread, Inc. and Roush Products Company (Roush) claimed historic trademark use of **OLYMPIC** for bakery products, including a 1938 registration asserting first use in 1931.
- Roush also used **OLYMPIC MEAL** for bread mix and related bakery products by 1947.
- Federal statutes granted the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) exclusive rights in “Olympic” and related terms, while preserving limited “grandfather” rights for entities that had used those terms before the statutes’ effective dates for the same purpose and the same classes of goods.
- In 1991, Roush filed an intent-to-use application to register **OLYMPIC KIDS** for bakery goods.
- USOC opposed the application, asserting statutory exclusivity and alleging the mark would cause confusion, deception, or a false association with the USOC or the U.S. Olympic Team.
- USOC also asserted it had developed and used similar youth-oriented mascot branding (including **OLYMPIKIDS** and later **OLYMPIC KIDS**).
- The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) sustained the opposition, concluding Roush’s grandfathered rights to **OLYMPIC** did not extend to registering **OLYMPIC KIDS**.
- Roush appealed to the Federal Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether statutory “grandfather” rights allowing a pre-Act user to “continue the use” of an “Olympic” mark on certain goods include the right to register a new, different mark incorporating “Olympic” (OLYMPIC KIDS) for similar goods.
2. Whether OLYMPIC KIDS is sufficiently different from Roush’s historic OLYMPIC marks such that it falls outside the preserved pre-Act uses.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB.
- Roush’s preserved rights were limited to continuing its pre-Act uses of **OLYMPIC** (and related historic uses) for the same purposes and classes of goods.
- Those preserved rights did not extend to obtaining a new federal registration for the different mark **OLYMPIC KIDS**.
- The court agreed that **OLYMPIC** and **OLYMPIC KIDS** create different commercial impressions; adding “KIDS” was a material change rather than an inconsequential modification.
- USOC could rely on its statutory exclusivity to block registration of OLYMPIC KIDS.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory grants giving the USOC exclusive rights in “Olympic” are subject only to a narrow exception preserving pre-Act users’ ability to **continue** the same use for the same purposes and classes of goods.
- “Continue the use” preserves existing, lawful uses; it does not authorize expansion into materially different marks, new brand extensions, or additional forms of exploitation that would intrude on USOC exclusivity.
- A pre-Act user’s ability to keep using a historic “Olympic” mark does not imply a right to obtain new federal registrations incorporating “Olympic.”
- Whether a proposed mark falls outside grandfathered rights may turn on whether it is a materially different mark producing a different overall commercial impression.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that a bakery’s pre-Act “Olympic” trademark rights were limited to continued historical use and did not permit registration of the new mark OLYMPIC KIDS; accordingly, the USOC’s statutory exclusivity barred the registration.


O-M Bread, Inc. v. United States Olympic Comm., 65 F.3d 933 (Fed. Cir. 1995)