Background
Xiamen Olymate Import & Export Co., a Chinese manufacturer, markets a line of wellness devices under the brand “OlyLife” — including the Tera P90 and P90+ products that combine Pulsed Electro-Magnetic Field (PEMF) and terahertz wave therapy. The company registered the “OlyLife” trademark internationally through WIPO and applied for U.S. registration, building a global distribution network for its devices.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) sued Xiamen Olymate in early 2026, alleging that “OlyLife” infringes their exclusive rights under the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (OASA), 36 U.S.C. § 220506, which grants the Olympic organizations broad protection over the word “Olympic” and confusingly similar terms. The committees also asserted Lanham Act claims for false association, arguing the “Oly” prefix suggests an endorsement or connection to the Olympic movement that does not exist.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted a partial preliminary injunction in favor of the Olympic committees, ordering Xiamen Olymate to cease using the “OlyLife” branding in connection with the marketing, sale, and distribution of its products in the United States.
The court found that the Olympic committees demonstrated a likelihood of success on their OASA claim. Under the Act, the USOPC holds exclusive rights to use the word “Olympic” and terms sufficiently similar to create a false suggestion of connection to the Olympic movement. The court concluded that “OlyLife” — combining the “Oly” prefix associated with “Olympics” with “Life” — was likely to suggest to consumers an affiliation with or endorsement by the Olympic organizations, particularly given the wellness and fitness context of the products.
The injunction was characterized as “partial” — applying to the use of the OlyLife mark in U.S. commerce while the underlying trademark case proceeds to resolution on the merits.
Key Takeaways
- The OASA provides the Olympic committees with rights broader than ordinary trademark law — they need not prove likelihood of confusion in the traditional Lanham Act sense, only that a mark creates a “false suggestion of connection” with the Olympic movement.
- The “Oly” prefix alone, even without the full word “Olympic,” can be enough to trigger OASA protection when used on products in the health, fitness, or wellness space.
- Companies choosing brand names with “Oly” or “Olymp” elements face significant legal risk regardless of whether they intend to evoke the Games — the standard under OASA is more protective than traditional trademark analysis.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the extraordinary trademark protection Congress has granted to the Olympic brand. Unlike ordinary trademark disputes where plaintiffs must show consumer confusion, the OASA requires only that a mark creates a “false suggestion of connection” — a lower bar that gives the Olympic committees powerful enforcement tools. For international companies entering the U.S. market, the case is a reminder that brand names cleared in other jurisdictions may run afoul of the OASA’s broad reach, even when the products have nothing to do with athletics. The wellness device market in particular is growing rapidly, and companies in this space should carefully vet brand names for any Olympic-adjacent connotations before investing in U.S. distribution.