Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang Not Present N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) - MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION (Dkt. 50, filed on April 3, 2026)

I. INTRODUCTION

This case centers on allegations that defendants unlawfully exploited intellectual

property relating to the Olympics by using the trademark OLYLIFE to market and sell

health and wellness products.

On January 6, 2026, plaintiffs Comité International Olympique (a/k/a International

Olympic Committee (“IOC”)) and the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee

(“USOPC’”) (collectively the “Olympic Parties”) filed this action against defendants

Xiamen Olymate Import & Export Co., Ltd. (a/k/a Xiamen Olymate Import & Export

Co., Ltd.), Oly Processing LLC, Olylife International Sdn. Bhd. (a/k/a Olylife

International Sdn Bhd), Olylife International PTE. Ltd. (a/k/a Olylife International PTE

Ltd), Olylife (Thailand) Co. Ltd., PT. Olylife International Indonesia, Olylife Limited,

and Does 1-10 (collectively “OlyLife”). Plaintiffs assert ten claims against all

defendants: (1) false association in violation of the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act

(“OASA”), 36 U.S.C. § 220506(c)(4): (2) use of the Olympic name and Olympic

symbols in violation of the OASA, 36 U.S.C. § 220506(c)(1)-(c)(3); (3) trademark

infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114: (4) infringement of common law trademarks, unfair

competition, false designation of origin, false association, and passing off, 15 U.S.C. §

1125(a); (5) federal dilution of famous marks OLYMPIC and OLYMPIAN, 15. U.S.C. §

1125(c): (6) trademark infringement under California common law; (7) trademark

dilution, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14247; (8) unfair competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

§§ 17200, et. seq.; (9) unfair competition under California common law; and (10)

cybersquatting, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). Dkt. 1.

On April 3, 2026, plaintiffs filed the instant motion for a preliminary injunction.

Dkt. 50 (“Mot.”). On April 30, 2026, defendants filed an opposition. Dkt. 60 (“Opp”).

On May 18, 2026, plaintiff filed a reply. Dkt. 62

On June 1, 2026, the Court held a hearing. Having carefully considered the

parties’ arguments and submissions, the Court finds and concludes as follows.

II. BACKGROUND

Attached to its motion, plaintiffs provide declarations of Anne-Sophie Voumand,

Katie Bynum Aznavorian, and Keith Toms, along with exhibits. See dkt. 50. In

opposition, defendants submitted declarations of Wang Siyi, Jack Conley, Luo Haocheng,

Adeia Fazira, Che Fung (Samuel) Leung, Wang Yihan, Paul Hsuei, Cynthia R. Cohen,

Robert A. Leonard, Valerie L. Makarewicz, Yee Jin Yeong, along with exhibits. See dkt.

60. In reply, plaintiff provided supplemental declarations of Keith Toms, Sarah Butler,

Carlos Castro, Ryan Rabenold, and Karen Hays, along with exhibits. Dkts. 63-67.

A. The Olympic Parties’ Rights

For 130 years, the IOC, with the help of the USOPC and other global members of

the Olympic Movement,’ has organized the Olympic Games, the world’s preeminent

international sporting competition that brings together athletes from around the world.

See generally Voumard Decl. § 11.

The IOC is the leader of the Olympic Movement. Mot. at 14. It works to build a

better world through sport as the epicenter for collaboration between all Olympic

stakeholders, including the athletes, the USOPC and other National Olympic

Committees, and worldwide Olympic Partners. See Voumard Decl. 79. The USOPC

1 The Olympic Movement is composed of three main constituents: the International

Olympic Committee (IOC), the International Sports Federations (IFs) and the National

Olympic Committees (NOCs). International Olympic Committee, OLYMPICS,

https://www.olympics.com/10c/faq/olympism-and-the-olympic-movement/what-is-the-

olympic-movement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

serves as both the National Olympic Committee and the National Paralympic Committee

for the United States. The USOPC is responsible for training, entering, and funding

Team USA and is the steward of the Olympic Movement in the United States. See

Aznavorian Decl. § 4.

Under the Olympic Charter, the IOC is the owner of all rights in and to the

Olympic Games, including all rights relating to the organization, exploitation, and

marketing of the Olympic Games (the “Olympic intellectual property”). See Voumard

Decl., 4-5, 7, Ex. 1. The USOPC is responsible for preventing unauthorized use of

any Olympic intellectual property in the United States. See Aznavorian Decl. § 6. The

IOC assigns legal ownership of certain intellectual property rights to empower the

USOPC’s enforcement efforts. See Voumard Decl. § 8.

Through the OASA, Congress granted exclusive rights to the USOPC to

commercially exploit designations relating to the Olympic Games, including the Olympic

Rings symbol, the words “Olympic” and “Olympiad,” “any combination or simulation of

those words tending to cause confusion or mistake, to deceive, or to falsely suggest a

connection” with any Olympic activity, and “any trademark, trade name, sign, symbol, or

insignia falsely representing association with, or authorization by” the IOC or USOPC.

See 36 U.S.C. § 220506.

The Olympic Parties also own numerous trademark registrations for marks

associated with the Olympic Games, including the mark OLYMPIC, the Olympic Rings,

and various OLYMPIC- and OLYMPIAN-formative marks (collectively the “Olympic

Registered Marks”). See Dkt. 50-36, Ex. U. The Olympic Parties contend that they also

own common law rights in the marks OLYMPIC, OLYMPIAN, the Olympic Rings,

and—especially relevant to this dispute—the three-letter phrase “OLY” (the “Olympic

Common Law Marks,” and, collectively with the Olympic Registered Marks, the

“Olympic Marks”) because of plaintiffs’ use of these marks in U.S. commerce. See

Voumard Decl., {J 13-16; Aznavorian Decl. § 7.

The Olympic Parties have robust licensing programs. See Voumard Decl., § 18:

Aznavorian Decl., { 9. Due to the fame, prestige, and cachet of the Olympic Marks and

the Olympic Games, the right to become an Olympic sponsor is highly sought after. Mot.

at 15. Olympic sponsorship programs, including The Olympic Partner (“TOP”) program,

attract many of the world’s largest, most successful, and most prestigious companies. Id.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘Oo’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

Sponsors, licensees, and other partners provide funding for the Olympic Games and the

Olympic Movement in exchange for the authorization to identify themselves as “proud

sponsors” of the Olympic Games, use certain Olympic Marks, and associate themselves

and their products with the Olympics. See Voumard Decl., { 19; Aznavorian Decl., 4

10-12. The Olympic Parties take great care in selecting and controlling authorized

sponsor activities. See Voumard Decl., { 23. Before accepting a sponsor, the Olympic

Parties carefully determine whether the sponsorship relationship would be compliant with

the ethical principles of the Olympic Movement and would advance the goals of

Olympism. See id.

The Olympic Parties have authorized licensees to use certain Olympic Marks in

connection with a wide variety of goods and services in many different industries,

including but not limited to electronics, household and personal care items, sporting

equipment, cosmetics, sanitary goods, pharmaceuticals, e-commerce, accommodations,

travel infrastructure, insurance, apparel, and finance, among others. Mot. at 16; see

Voumard Decl. § 21. Sponsors use the Olympic Marks in connection with the promotion

and sale of their products in the United States and around the world. See Voumard Decl.

20-21. The Olympic Games and Olympic Movement are funded in material part

through these sponsorships and licensing arrangements. See Voumard Decl., 22. The

IOC distributes 90% of its revenue to organizations throughout the Olympic Movement

to support the staging of the Olympic Games and to promote the worldwide development

of sport. See Voumard Decl. §[ 23. The USOPC also greatly depends on these

sponsorships and licenses to fund Team USA and represent the United States at the

Olympic Games. See Aznavorian Decl., § 11. The Olympic Parties regularly enforce

their statutory rights under the OASA. See id. § 8.

B. The OlyLife Business

Defendant Xiamen Olymate Import & Export Co., Ltd. (“Xiamen Olymate’”) is a

Chinese manufacturer of health and wellness products sold under the OlyLife brand,

including pulsed electromagnetic field therapy devices, terahertz light wave devices,

hydrogen-infusing water bottles, dietary supplements, air purifiers, smart eye massagers,

and sanitary napkins. Wang Siyi Decl. § 4. These products typically retail for several

hundred to several thousand dollars, requiring significant purchaser investment and

deliberation. Makarewicz Decl. § 2.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

Defendants contend that the OlyLife mark was independently created by OlyLife

International Sdn. Bhd. (“OlyLife Malaysia”). Yeong Decl. ] 9-11. Defendants contend

that the name “Oly” was selected as a short, distinctive, and memorable syllable—not as

an abbreviation of “Olympic”—and that the suffix “Life” was added to reflect the brand’s

focus on health and wellness and living a full, healthy life. Opp. at 3: Yeong Decl. □ 9-

11. Defendants contend that they never intended for the OlyLife mark to suggest any

connection with the Olympic Parties. Yeong Decl. §§j 9-11.

□□ ONT,

Dkt. 50-17, Ex. B at 10 (an “OlyLife” mark used by defendants).

4 OLYLIFE

INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTOR

Dkt. 60-11, Ex. MAKA-1 (another “OlyLife” mark used by defendants’ distributors).

>

} Ly

OlyLife Shaken OlyLife SkyLine SL-6 OlyLife PEMF Therapy

Massager Machine THz Tera-

$1,295.00 ‘hou P90+ (without Gels)

$1,895.00

or as low as $57.97/mo, with or as low as $26.86/mo. with

Afterpay © Afterpay © or as low as $84.84/mo. with

8 Afterpay ©

Ex. MAKA-1 (OlyLife products available for sale on an Olylife distributor website).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

By contrast, plaintiffs contend that defendants have associated the OlyLife brand to

the Olympics, including by representing that “Oly” means “Olympics” and that “OlyLife

passionately means live an Olympic Life!” Dkt. 50-16, Ex. A: Dkt. 50-17, Ex. B at 11;

Dkt. 50-28, Ex. M. Plaintiffs argue that defendants have also stated in marketing

materials that “the name OlyLife comes from the idea of living the Olympian lifestyle,”

and that the brand is “inspired by the Olympic spirit.” Dkt. 50-19, Ex. D at 33: dkt. 50-

21, Ex. F. Plaintiffs also argue that defendants further associate themselves and the

OLYLIFE Mark with the Olympic Games, the Olympic Movement, and the Olympic

Parties by using the Olympic Rings and Olympic Flag alongside defendants’ OlyLife

brand. Dkt. 50-18, Ex. C; dkt. 50-20, Ex. E; see also Exs. A, B, M. Plaintiffs further

argue that defendants use images of Olympic athletes and Olympic sports, and that a

slogan used by defendants—“Champion’s Choice”—1s intended to be a reference to the

Olympic Games. See, e.g., Ex. C; Ex. F, Dkt. 50-21 at 41 (“everyone adores Olympic

champions, and when they win, we sometimes shed tears of joy too!”); Ex. B at 10 (“Be

The Olympic Champion In Life”).

eee ma ee ee Oia re} Bie

NT <1) a=) oe hal Taal lola

epee eel ia MM die eli oR dale By lee lal]

Citet tial tale: mer alee e Rael tp

4 Ue eee ee Beene Fea! ae mn

ah co □□

Pe eR eel eal Snel ela)

Ue a aL

Ex. B at 11 (screenshot of marketing brochure, attributable to one or more defendants).

See Opp. at 11.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

wy OLYLIFE Home About Sh

0h

i Da 2 (11)

Dkt. 50-20, Ex. E at 38 (screenshot of an OlyLife website, attributable to one or more

defendants). See Opp. at 11.

ee

~ olylife.international * Follow □□□

F ( ) □□ Wishing all athletes an exhilarating

7 M2 PARIS 2024 a J journey and a triumphant outcome in

□□ a L202 RE APRON

~ ee ‘ Pe 7 47+f£% a" 5 0)! OlyLife 45¢K—E2on8 |

□ 7 : rhs xe =

Sern 4 - - 1 +. yee" x OlyLife - Champion's Choice!!

= ; LP Ge *or GG... No comments yet.

oi ] Start the conversation.

_ ro 9280 7 □

——

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

Dkt. 50-2, Ex. H at 74 (screenshot of Instagram post, attributable to one or more

defendants). See Opp. at 11.

OlyLife Malaysia registered the OLYLIFE mark with the Intellectual Property

Corporation of Malaysia on November 2, 2022. Yeong Decl. § 8. Xiamen Olymate

holds trademark registrations for OLYLIFE in 25 countries and several pending

trademark applications for the OLYLIFE mark before the United States Patent and

Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Makarewicz Decl. 4 3. The USPTO examining attorney

has reviewed Xiamen Olymate’s trademark registration applications and has approved the

marks for publication. See id. Plaintiffs thereafter filed opposition proceedings before

the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which remain pending. Id.

OlyLife products are sold through a multi-level marketing (“MLM”) structure in

which individual distributors sell defendants’ products; the distributors are independent

businesspersons, not employees or agents of defendants. Yeong Decl. § 27; Conley Decl.

| 3: Hsuei Decl. {J 5-6; Leung Decl., 4] 5-9. Defendant Oly Processing LLC processes

U.S. orders and provides customer support but maintains no inventory; products ship

directly from China. Conley Decl. | 2-4. OlyLife Malaysia does not manufacture

OlyLife products: it sells OlyLife-branded health and wellness products through its

website and distributor network. Yeong Decl. { 6. OlyLife Malaysia maintains its own

bank accounts, separate from the bank accounts of all other OlyLife entities, and does not

commingle its funds with the funds of any other OlyLife entity. Yeong Decl. The

remaining defendants—OlyLife (Thailand), PT. OlyLife International Indonesia, OlyLife

International PTE. Ltd. (Singapore), and OlyLife Limited (Hong Kong)—are each

separate legal entities with independent governance and finances, and none is a

subsidiary of any other. Opp. at 4. Each foreign-market entity operates only within its

own local jurisdiction, conducting distributor support, regulatory compliance, and

product distribution under separate management and in accordance with local law. Wang

Yihan Decl., {| 3—7; Luo Decl. (Singapore) □□□ 3—6; Luo Decl. (Thailand) 4] 3—6; Fazira

Decl. 3-6. The OlyLife defendants share no common ownership of distributor

materials, no centralized marketing function, and no joint authority over each others’

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

social-media accounts.* Wang Siyi Decl., §§ 5-9; Wang Yihan Decl. § 3-7; Luo Decl.

(Singapore) §] 3-6; Luo Decl. (Thailand) §f 3-6; Fazira Decl. 4 3-6.

Il. LEGAL STANDARD

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.”

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a

preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of

equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555

US. at 20. Accord Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046,

1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Alternatively, “‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a

hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can support issuance of an

injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met.” All. for the

Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011) (interpreting Winter and

explaining that the “sliding scale” test for preliminary injunctive relief remains valid). A

“serious question” is one on which the movant “has a fair chance of success on the

merits.” Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1421 (9th Cir.

1984).

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show more than the “possibility”

of irreparable injury; he must demonstrate that irreparable injury 1s “likely” in the

absence of preliminary relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22: Am. Trucking, 559 F.3d at 1052.

It is not enough that the claimed harm be irreparable—it also must be imminent.

Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). Conclusory

affidavits are insufficient to demonstrate irreparable harm. Am. Passage Media Corp. v.

Cass Comme’ns, Inc., 750 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir. 1985).

? Defendants state that: “OlyLife Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia are separately

preparing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(2), and join this Opposition without waiver of, and expressly preserving, that

defense.” Opp. at 5.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs seek, among other requests, a preliminary injunction “enjoining and

restraining all |d|efendants, or any of their agents or affiliates, from|] [u]sing in any

manner the trademarks and trade names OLYLIFE, OLY NATION, OLY

PROCESSING, any trademark or trade name that begins with or incorporates the term

“OLY,” or any simulations or colorable variations of the foregoing (collectively

“OLYLIFE and OLY-formative Marks” or “OlyLife Marks”)” on their products and

advertisements. Mot. at 2-3. Plaintiffs further seek to enjoin defendants from “[m]Jaking

any statement or representation, whether oral or in writing, claiming or implying that any

[djefendant, or their products or services, are connected, affiliated, associated with,

authorized by, or a sponsor of the Olympic Games, the Olympic Parties, or the Olympic

Movement.” Id. at 3.

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

1. OASA Claims

The OASA provides, in relevant part:

(c) Civil action for unauthorized use. ... [The USOPC] may file a civil action

against a person for the remedies provided in the [Lanham] Act ... if the person,

without the consent of the [USOPC], uses for the purpose of trade, to induce the

sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic

performance, or competition--

(1) the symbol [of the International Olympic Committee, consisting of 5

interlocking rings ... |

(3) the words [“Olympic’”’, “Olympiad”, ...], or any combination or simulation of

those words tending to cause confusion or mistake, to deceive, or to falsely suggest

a connection with the [USOPC] or any Olympic .... Games activity; or

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

(4) any trademark, trade name, sign, symbol, or insignia falsely representing

association with, or authorization by, the International Olympic Committee, ... or

the [USOPC].

36 U.S.C. § 220506 (alterations in original).

Plaintiffs argue that they are likely to succeed on their OASA claims (claims one

and two) because the OLYLIFE and OLY-formative Marks are a simulation of the word

“Olympic” tending to falsely suggest a connection with the Olympics, 1n violation of 36

U.S.C. § 220506(c)(3); the OLYLIFE and OLY-formative Marks falsely represent an

association with, or authorization by, the Olympic Parties, in violation of 36 U.S.C. §

220506(c)(4): and OlyLife has used the protected “Olympic” and Olympic Rings marks,

in violation of 36 U.S.C. § 220506(c)(1). Mot. at 20-23. Plaintiffs argue that defendants

have used the OlyLife Marks for “the purpose of trade,” in violation of the OASA. Id. at

20.

In opposition, defendants argue that plaintiffs’ evidence of defendants’ alleged

violation of the OASA “‘is largely misattributed.”” Opp. at 10. Defendants argue that

materials offered [by plaintiffs to show a violation of] § 220506(c)(1) and (c)(3)

(Exhibits A, C, D, K, M, T) were created by [defendants’] independent third-party

distributors, not by the OlyLife Defendants.” Id. Defendants argue that “OlyLife’s

distributors are independent businesspersons, not employees or agents [of defendants].

Each distributor agrees to the OlyLife Policies & Procedures as a condition of

membership, which expressly provide that distributors are independent contractors with

no authority to bind any OlyLife entity. ... Far from encouraging the challenged conduct,

OlyLife’s written policies* expressly prohibit it.” Id. (citing Yeong Decl. § 29).

Defendants contend that such “policies negate any inference of inducement or

ratification.” Id. at 11. Defendants argue that “Plaintiffs offer no evidence that any

3 Section 1.10.5 of OlyLife’s Policies & Procedures prohibits distributors from

“promot[ing]|, publiciz[ing], or broadcast[ing] any video or audio of any kind that relates

to the product in any form of media, without written consent from [the] company.”

Yeong Decl., Ex. MALA-4 § 1.10.5. Section 1.18 provides for termination of

distributors who engage in “[u|nauthorized printing, publishing and usage of the

Company’s marketing materials” or “[e]xaggerated and untrue publicity of Company

products.” Id., Ex. MALA-4 § 1.18(d)-(e).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

OlyLife Defendant had specific, contemporaneous knowledge of the particular distributor

materials cited in the Motion, much less that Defendants exercised direct control over

those materials’ creation or dissemination.” Id. at 11. They argue that “Plaintiffs’

attribution theory rests on an attorney declaration that establishes no foundation,

authorship, control, or agency,” and that “[s]worn declarations from the distributor-

creator (Leung Decl., {J 11, 15, 18-32), the OlyNation Team organizer (Hsuei Decl., 4

6-13), and from the OlyLife Defendants (Yeong Decl., 4] 20-26, 30; Conley Decl., 9-

10) confirm [the] independent third-party origin” of the violative marks that plaintiffs

attribute to defendants. Id.

Defendants concede that certain OlyLife marketing materials in violation of §§

220506(c)(1) or (c)(3) of OASA—Exhibits B, E, F, H—are attributable to certain

OlyLife defendants, but they argue that such materials have now been removed or

withdrawn.* Id. at 11-12.

Defendants argue that the OLYLIFE mark itself does not violate the OASA. Id. at

12. They argue that the OLYLIFE mark does not violate § 220506(c)(1) because the

“OLYLIFE mark contains no Rings, no five-circle device, and no Olympic emblem.” Id.

at 12. They further argue that the OLYLIFE mark does not violate § 220506(c)(3)

because: “Oly” is a common-language fragment, not a “simulation” of “Olympic; the

OASA’s enumeration of specific, enumerated terms forecloses extension to

unenumerated fragments like “Oly”; making the use of the letters “Oly” actionable would

make “Olympus,” “Olympiad,” and countless other “Oly-” formative words actionable

that were never thought to be actionable; the “OLYLIFE” mark does not falsely suggest

4 Defendants state that “[o]nce on notice, Defendants removed all references to the

Olympic Rings, the Olympic Flag, the Olympic spirit, and the word “Olympic” from

corporate-controlled websites and social-media accounts; withdrew marketing materials

containing Olympic-referencing language; issued directives to all distributors to cease

using any Olympic-related imagery, symbols, or language; and implemented an ongoing

compliance review process. These steps were substantially completed before Plaintiffs

filed their Motion on April 3, 2026. Defendants are willing to consent to a court order

prohibiting use of the word “Olympic,” the Olympic Rings, and any explicit references to

the Olympic Games, and to add prominent disclaimers of non-affiliation.” Opp. at 8

(citations omitted).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

an Olympic connection; and defendants’ expert has opined, based on an empirical survey

she conducted, regarding the absence of any customer confusion or association between

the Olympics and the “OLYLIFE” brand in the United States. Opp. at 9-15. Moreover,

defendants argue that the World Olympians Association’s use of the “OLY” title to refer

to Olympic athletes does not protect this three-letter phrase from use in commerce. Id. at

15-16. They further argue that the OlyLife Marks themselves do not falsely represent an

association with, or authorization by, any Olympic entity. Id. at 16.

In reply, plaintiffs argue that the “OLYLIFE” mark is a simulation of the protected

word “Olympic” because defendants conceived “OLYLIFE” as a short-form phrase to

mean “Olympic Life” and that defendants have and still continue to promote an explicit

connection between the concepts in their marketing materials. Reply at 16. Plaintiffs

argue that “while [use of the prefix] ‘Oly’ is not illegal per se, OLYLIFE violates the

OASA because it ‘[p]assionately means live an Olympic Life!’ and thus does much more

than ‘tend’ to falsely suggest an Olympic connection.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. B, Dkt. 50-17

at 11). Plaintiffs further argue that defendants’ expert survey indicating little to no

customer confusion regarding the OLYLIFE brand should be given no weight because it

does not replicate actual marketplace conditions, given that the survey tests consumers’

associations with the OLYLIFE mark based on defendants’ U.S.-facing website, whereas

OlyLife products are sold via MLM distributors who market through social media, word-

of-mouth, and small-group presentations.°

The Court finds that plaintiffs have demonstrated that the OlyLife defendants have

likely violated the OASA by using the Olympic Rings and the word “Olympic” in

marketing their products and by using insignia that falsely represent an association with,

or authorization by Olympic entities. See Exs. B, E, F, H; 36 U.S.C. §§ 220506(c)(1) or

> Plaintiffs argue that defendants’ expert survey suffers from additional flaws, including

that it improperly primes survey respondents away from associations with the Olympics

by asking respondents whether “any other company or business” 1s affiliated with the

“OLYLIFE” page despite that the Olympics is not considered by consumers as a

company or business. Reply at 21. Moreover, plaintiffs argue that the survey’s

respondent population is both over and underinclusive because it contains “vague

screening questions and exclude[es] consumers who would purchase from [ defendants’ |

distributors or [those] who might have household incomes under $100,000.” Id. at 21.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

(c)(3). Such unlawful advertising is attributable to the OlyLife defendants, a fact that

defendants concede. Opp. at 11. The Court need not address other potential violations of

the OASA by defendants’ third-party distributors because plaintiff has established a

likelihood of success on their OASA claim based on defendants’ own marketing

materials.

With respect to the OLYLIFE and OLY-formative Marks themselves, the Court

finds that defendants’ use of such marks, when stripped of any Olympic-specific

reference, would not likely violate the OASA. The OASA prohibits the unauthorized use

of the words “Olympic,” “Olympiad,” “Citrus Altius Fortius,” “Paralympic,”

“Paralympiad,” “Pan-American,” “Parapan American,” and “America Espirito Sport

Fraternite,” or “any combination of those words.” See 36 U.S.C. § 220506(a)(4), (c)(3).

“OLY” is not one of them: nor is “OLY” a combination of these words.

The OASA also prohibits the unauthorized use of “any combination or simulation

of [the above] words tending to cause confusion or mistake, to deceive, or to falsely

suggest a connection with the [USOPC] or any Olympic ... Games activity.” 36 U.S.C. §

220506(c)(3). Because the term “simulation” is not defined in the OASA, the Court turns

to the dictionary: A “simulation” is “[a]n assumption of an appearance that is feigned,

false, or deceptive.” Simulation, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). The Court

finds that the OLYLIFE and OLY-formative Marks themselves, when stripped of any

Olympic-specific reference, do not likely constitute a “simulation” of the words

“Olympic” or “Olympiad” that tend to cause confusion or mistake, to deceive, or to

falsely suggest a connection with the Olympics. The only connection between the

OLYLIFE and OLY-formative Marks and the words “Olympic” or “Olympiad” are the

three letters “OLY.” The OlyLife Marks’ use of such letters alone cannot establish a

connection with the Olympics because “OLY” appears in everyday English words, proper

names, place names, and commercial marks that have no connection to and are not likely

to cause confusion with the Olympic Games—an international athletic competition—or

any Olympic entity. For example: Olympia Group (an investment company), Olympia

Sports (an American sporting good retail company), Olympus (camera brand), Mt.

Olympus (a neighborhood in the Hollywood Hills area of Los Angeles), and Olyphant (a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

surname), among others.° Moreover, the Court finds that the use of such marks on

defendants’ various health and wellness devices and products, without more, are not

likely to cause confusion or falsely suggest a connection between defendants and the

Olympics, an international athletic competition.

This conclusion 1s supported by the empirical survey conducted by defendants’

expert, who found that of 204 qualified U.S. consumers shown OlyLife’s principal U.S.-

facing commercial website, none mentioned or associated the brand with the Olympics,

the IOC, the USOPC, Olympic athletes, or any Olympic sponsor. Dkt. 60-9, Cohen Rpt.

§§ V-VI. Despite its potential flaws, see Reply at 20-21, the survey nonetheless supports

plaintiffs’ contention that the “OLYLIFE” mark itself is not likely a simulation of

protected Olympic words tending to cause confusion or mistake, to deceive, or to falsely

suggest a connection with the Olympic parties. Nor 1s it likely that “OLYLFE,” by itself,

constitutes a mark that falsely represents an association with the Olympic parties.

Accordingly, while the Court concludes that the OlyLife defendants have likely

violated the OASA through their use of protected Olympic symbols and marks in the

course of their business, the OLYLIFE and OLY-formative Marks by themselves do not

likely violate the OASA.

2. Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition

Plaintiffs argue that they are likely to succeed on their trademark infringement and

unfair competition clatzms—claims three (trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. §

1114), four (false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1114), six (trademark

infringement under California common law), eight (unfair competition under Cal. Bus. &

Prof. Code § 17200), and nine (unfair competition under California common law)—

which they contend are subject to the same “likelihood of confusion” test under Ninth

Circuit precedent. Mot. at 23. Plaintiffs argue that numerous factors indicate a

° The Court does not opine that the use of the “OLY” prefix, when combined with other

letters or used in certain contexts, cannot violate the OASA. See United States Olympic

Comm. v. Olymp-Herrenwaschefabriken Bezner Gmbh & Co., 224 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 497

(T.T.A.B. July 20, 1984) (finding that a likelihood of confusion exists from

contemporaneous use of “OLYMP” and “OLYMPIC” marks when placed on similar

goods like athletic wear or sportswear).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘Oo’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

likelihood of confusion: the Olympic Marks have unparalleled recognition in the market:

the parties’ goods are related because consumers are accustomed to seeing a wide array

of officially licensed goods and services; the Olympic Marks have similar sight, sound,

and meaning to OLYLIFE and OLY-formative Marks because they share the dominant

beginning “OLY” prefix; defendants knowingly and intentionally adopted a mark similar

to the Olympic Marks; OlyLife customers and MLM participants have exhibited

confusion; defendants’ business is likely to expand and compete further with the Olympic

Parties’ licensees: and the parties’ marketing channels are similar as both target the same

nationwide class of consumers. Mot. at 24-29.

In opposition, defendants argue that the likelihood of confusion factors do not

support plaintiffs’ infringement claims. Defendants argue that while the word “Olympic”

and the Olympic Rings symbol are strong marks, their strength does not extend to every

three-letter substring extracted from it; that “OlyLife” does not have a similar sight,

sound, and meaning to “Olympic”; that the parties’ goods are not related because

plaintiffs organize international athletic competitions and license major commercial

sponsors, whereas defendants sells niche wellness technology products: that an empirical

survey confirms that customers do not confuse the “OlyLife” brand with the Olympics;

that the parties operate through fundamentally different marketing channels; and that

once defendants’ independent third-party distributors’ marketing materials are excluded,

there is little evidence of defendants’ intent to infringe. Opp. at 17-22.

In reply, plaintiffs argue that defendants’ distributors are actually confused and are

actively confusing the marketplace through their marketing. See Reply at 13-16.

“To prevail on a claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, a

plaintiff must prove: (1) ownership of a valid trademark: (2) use of the mark without its

consent; and (3) that such use is likely to cause confusion.” Credit One Corp. v. Credit

One Financial, Inc., 661 F.Supp.2d 1134, 1137 (C.D. Cal. 2009): see also Rearden LLC

v. Rearden Commerce, Inc., 683 F.3d 1190, 1202 (9th Cir. 2012) (“To prevail on its

Lanham Act trademark claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that it has a protectible

ownership interest in the mark; and (2) that the defendant's use of the mark is likely to

cause consumer confusion.” (quotation marks omitted)); 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). “The

elements of a federal unfair competition claim for false designation of origin of services

under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act is identical to the federal trademark infringement

claim, with the exception that the trademark need not be registered.” Century 21 Real

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘Oo’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

Est. LLC v. All Pro. Realty, Inc., No. CIV. 2:10-2751, 2011 WL 221651, at *10 (E._D.

Cal. Jan. 24, 2011) (citations omitted). The same “ultimate test” governs both federal

claims: “whether the public is likely to be deceived or confused by the similarity of the

marks.” Century 21 Real Estate v. Sandlin, 846 F.2d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 1998). “With

respect to California law claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition,

courts apply the same likelihood of confusion test applied to a federal trademark

infringement claim.” Century 21 Real Est. LLC, 2011 WL 221651, at *10.

“<The UCL prohibits, and provides civil remedies for, unfair competition,’ which it

defines as ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.’ ... As unfair

competition includes ‘unlawful’ business practices, the UCL “permits violations of other

laws to be treated as unfair competition that is independently actionable.’” Cody v.

SoulCycle Inc., No. CV156457GHKJEMX, 2016 WL 4771392, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Jan.

11, 2016) (citations omitted). However, “a claim under the UCL need not be based upon

violation of another law as ‘a practice may be deemed unfair even if not specifically

proscribed by some other law.’” Blennis v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 07-00333 JF,

2008 WL 818526, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2008) (citation omitted). “The common law

tort of unfair competition ... provided “an equitable remedy against the wrongful

exploitation of trade names and common law trademarks that were not otherwise entitled

to legal protection.” Sybersound Recs., Inc. v. VAV Corp., 517 F.3d 1137, 1153 (9th

Cir. 2008) (quoting Bank of the W. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1263 (1992)).

The Court finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their infringement claims

under the Lanham Act. “We employ an eight factor test (“Sleekcraft factors’) in

determining the likelihood of confusion. These factors include: (1) strength of the mark:

(2) proximity of the goods; (3) similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion;

(5) marketing channels used; (6) type of goods and the degree of care likely to be

exercised by the purchaser; (7) defendant’s intent in selecting the mark; and (8)

likelihood of expansion of the product lines.” Jada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc., 518 F.3d

628, 632 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). The test for likelihood of confusion is

“pliant”: “Some factors are much more important than others, and the relative importance

of each individual factor will be case-specific.” Brookfield Commce'ns, Inc. v. W. Coast

Ent. Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1054 (9th Cir. 1999). Courts should “regularly appl[y] all the

relevant factors ... [and] a final likelihood of confusion determination may rest on those

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

factors that are of the most relative importance in any particular case.” Jada Toys, 518

F.3d at 632-33.

Here, consideration of the Sleekcraft factors indicate that defendants’ conduct, in

using their OlyLife Marks in conjunction with the Olympic Marks, is likely to cause

confusion. As to the first factor, it is undisputed that the Olympic Marks are distinctive

and renowned. As to the second, the parties’ goods are sufficiently related such that

consumers encountering OlyLife’s health and wellness products marketed using the

Olympic Marks are likely to assume they are endorsed by the Olympic Parties. As to the

fourth factor, plaintiffs have presented evidence that OlyLife customers and MLM

participants have exhibited confusion as a result of defendants’ marketing conduct. See

Ex. O (including “#OlyLife #OlympicLife’); see also Ex. P ((OLYLIFE - OLYMPIC

LIFE .... It stands for Olympic life ... and that’s exactly what it unlocks”). As to the

seventh factor, the record indicates that defendants intentionally conceived of—or at least

marketed—their OlyLife Marks to exploit the reputation and goodwill of the Olympics

and the Olympic Marks; this intent is reflected by defendants’ own marketing materials,

which state that “OlyLife Passionately means live an Olympic Life,” Ex. B at 11, and that

“OlyLife is derived from “Living the Olympian lifestyle.” Ex. F at 41. See also Ex. E at

37-38 (“Our range of products and equipment are designed to help you live a healthy,

beautiful, and fulfilling life, just like an Olympic athlete. We are ... guided by our strong

beliefs as Olympians.”); Ex. H. These factors sufficiently indicate that defendants’

conduct is likely to cause confusion. Because plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their

infringement claims, they are also likely to succeed on their unfair competition claims

under the UCL and California common law that are predicated on defendants’

infringement.’

However, the Court finds that the use of the OlyLife Marks, by themselves, does

not constitute trademark infringement because the marks are not likely to cause customer

confusion. The only two Sleekcraft factors that support a likelihood of confusion

determination, with respect to the OlyLife Marks themselves, are the first and seventh

factors. As discussed, the Olympic Marks are strong, and the evidence of defendants’

intentional infringement of the Olympic Marks is clear. However, the remaining

7 The Court notes that defendants do not appear to dispute that they have infringed

plaintiffs’ protected marks. See opp. at 17-22.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

factors—importantly the fourth—are either neutral or counsel against a finding that the

OlyLife Marks, stripped of any Olympic reference, are likely to cause customer

confusion. As to the second factor, while there may be some overlap between the goods

to which the Olympic Parties have licensed the Olympic Marks and defendants’ health

and wellness products, such overlap is minimal. The Olympic Marks are licensed to

advertise household and personal care items, see Mot. at 16, whereas defendants sell

niche health wellness technology products, see Ex. MAKA-1. As to the third factor,

“OLYLIFE, OLY NATION, OLY PROCESSING?” do not closely resemble or sound like

“Olympic”; nor do the OlyLife Marks have similar designs or color schemes compared to

the Olympic Marks. As discussed, the “OLY” prefix appears across a broad range of

unrelated commercial marks—e.g., Olympus, Olympia—and consumers may distinguish

among them by reference to their suffixes and overall presentation. On the other hand,

because defendants appear to have conceived of and have marketed “OlyLife” to mean

“Olympic Life,” the court does not give much weight to this factor. The fifth and sixth

factors favor defendants. Plaintiffs use their marks to advertise the Olympic Games, an

international athletic competition, and to license their marks to commercial sponsors,

whereas defendants sell health and wellness technology products. While the Olympic

Marks are licensed to sell electronics, household and personal care items, sporting

equipment, cosmetics, sanitary goods, pharmaceuticals, e-commerce, accommodations,

travel infrastructure, insurance, apparel, and finance, Mot. at 16, defendants’ health

technology products, by contrast, are sold primarily via multi-level marketing, cost

hundreds to thousands of dollars, and require greater customer deliberation and

investment. Opp. at 18, 20. The eighth factor, likelihood of expansion of the product

lines, is neutral. While plaintiffs have offered some evidence that the OlyLife defendants

may possibly expand their product offerings* to compete with goods and products

licensed to bear the Olympic Marks, see Ex. Q, the use of the OlyLife Marks by

themselves is not infringing given their dissimilarity to the Olympic Marks. C

Importantly, with respect to the OlyLife Marks themselves, the fourth factor

strongly favors defendants. Plaintiffs have made no showing that the OlyLife Marks

themselves have actually caused customer confusion; plaintiffs’ evidence of actual

confusion is predicated on defendants’ use of the OlyLife Marks in conjunction with the

8 OlyLife has recently expanded its product offerings to include sanitary napkins, topical

ointments, and handled massage devices. See Ex. Q.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

Olympic Marks. Such evidence does not indicate that the OlyLife Marks themselves are

actually confusing. By contrast, defendants have made a strong showing that the OlyLife

Marks themselves have not caused actual confusion and are not likely to. Defendants

offer an empirical survey conducted by defendants’ expert who found that of 204

qualified U.S. consumers shown OlyLife’s principal U.S.-facing commercial website,

none mentioned or associated the brand with the Olympics, the IOC, the USOPC,

Olympic athletes, or any Olympic sponsor. Dkt. 60-9, Cohen Rpt. §§ V-VI. The Court,

having considered the Sleekcraft factors as a whole, finds that plaintiffs have not met

their burden of establishing that the use of the OlyLife Marks themselves is likely to

cause customer confusion.

Accordingly, while plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their trademark

infringement and derivative unfair competition claims based on defendants’ marketing

their products using the Olympic Rings or the word “Olympic,” plaintiffs are not likely to

succeed on such claims based solely on defendants’ use of the OlyLife Marks.

3. Trademark Dilution Claims

Plaintiffs argue that they are likely to succeed on their trademark dilution claims—

claims five (trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)) and seven (trademark dilution

under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14247)—because (1) the Olympic Marks are famous and

distinctive; (2) defendants uses the mark in commerce: (3) defendants’ use began after

the mark became famous; and (4) defendants’ use of the mark is likely to cause dilution

by blurring or dilution by tarnishment. Mot. at 29-32. Plaintiffs argue that, given the

similarity between defendants’ marks and the Olympic Marks and given defendants’

efforts to reinforce such similarities in their marketing, customers are likely to associate

defendants’ products with the Olympics. Id. at 31. Regarding dilution by tarnishment,

plaintiffs argue that “the public perception that the Olympics are endorsing an MLM

business model will damage the reputation of the Olympics.” Id. at 32.

In opposition, defendants argue that plaintiffs’ dilution by blurring claim fails

because a consumer who encounters the OLYLIFE mark would not associate the mark

with the Olympics. Opp. at 22. Defendants further argue that plaintiffs’ dilution by

tarnishment claim fails because even if consumers associate OLYLIFE with the

Olympics, plaintiffs offer no evidence that OlyLife products are “shoddy,”

“unwholesome” or of a “degrading quality”—that the products are defective, dangerous,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

or have generated consumer complaints, adverse health outcomes, or regulatory

enforcement actions that would tarnish the Olympic Marks. Id. at 23. Defendants argue

that the fact that their products are marketed via MLM schemes does not tarnish the

Olympic Marks because MLM 1s a lawful business structure expressly recognized by the

Federal Trade Commission. Id.

In reply, plaintiffs argue that defendants’ expert survey “plainly did not test for the

more general consumer connection at the heart of a blurring claim.” Reply at 25.

“Courts recognize two principal forms of dilution; tarnishing and blurring.”

Kaisha v. Nat. Health Trends Corp., No. 04-cv-09028-DSF-E, 2005 WL 1041112, at *4

(C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2005) (internal citation omitted). “Blurring occurs when a defendant

uses a plaintiff's trademark to identify the defendant’s goods or services, creating the

possibility that the mark will lose its ability to serve as a unique identifier of the

plaintiff's product.” Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1326 n.7 (9th Cir.

1998) (internal citations omitted). “Tamishment occurs when a famous mark is

improperly associated with an inferior or offensive product or service.” Id. (internal

citation omitted). “To assess dilution by way of blurring, courts look to “(1) the degree

of similarity between the marks; (2) the degree of distinctiveness of the famous mark; (3)

the extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusively

use of the mark; (4) the famous mark’s degree of recognition; (5) whether the user of the

mark intended to create an association with the famous mark; and (6) any actual

association between the two marks.” Monster Energy Co. v. BeastUp LLC, 395 F. Supp.

3d 1334, 1365 (E_D. Cal. 2019) (citing 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(c)(2)(B)). “This test is

strikingly similar to the test for likelihood of confusion under traditional trademark

infringement analysis.” Airwair Int'l Ltd. v. Vans, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-05060-EJD, 2013

WL 3786309, at *7 n.1 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2013). The Ninth Circuit has stated that a

dilution claim is subject to the same analysis whether it is brought under the Lanham Act

or under section 14330 of California’s Business and Professions code. Jada Toys, Inc. v.

Mattel, Inc., 518 F.3d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 2008).

Here, the Court finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their dilution by

blurring claim because defendants have marketed their products using the OlyLife Marks

alongside the Olympic Rings or the word “Olympic” and because defendants have

reinforced customers’ association of the parties’ marks by explicitly highlighting their

similarities through advertising materials. See Ex. E (“OlyLife is derived from ‘Living

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

the Olympian lifestyle’. Everyone adores Olympic champions, and when they win, we

sometimes shed tears of joy too!”’).

“To properly support a dilution by tarnishment claim, a plaintiff must establish that

the famous mark will suffer negative associations as a result of the use of the similar

mark.” Pendleton Woolen Mills. Inc. v. Round Up Ass'n., No. 3:11-cv-592-AC, 2012

WL 2721856, at *7 (D. Or. July 9, 2012). “‘Tamishment’ generally arises when the

plaintiff's trademark is linked to products of shoddy quality, diminishing the value of the

mark because the public will associate the lack of quality with the plaintiff's unrelated

goods.” Sony Computer Entm’t, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596, 609 (9th Cir.

2000) (internal citation omitted).

Here, the Court finds that there are “serious questions going to the merits” of

whether plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their dilution by tarnishment claim, which can

substitute for a showing of likelihood of success on the merits in the Court’s analysis,

assuming that “a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff ... [and] the other

two elements of the Winter test are also met.” Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1132. Defendants

market their products via multi-level marketing, which can be a lawful business structure.

Nonetheless, given the similarities between MLM business models and illicit pyramid

schemes, the Court finds that there are serious questions as to whether the Olympic

Marks could suffer negative associations as a result of defendants’ use of Olympic Marks

in the course of their MLM business. See F.T.C. v. BurnLounge, Inc., 753 F.3d 878, 883

(9th Cir. 2014) (“Not all MLM businesses are illegal pyramid schemes. To determine

whether a MLM business is a pyramid, a court must look at how the MLM business

operates in practice.”). At this stage, the Court lacks sufficient information to make such

determinations. Moreover, as plaintiffs argue, because “[m]any of [defendants’]

products make bold health claims that have not been evaluated or endorsed by the

Olympic Parties,” defendants’ use of the Olympic Marks in advertising their products

“create[e| a significant risk of reputation harm to the Olympics if these products fail to

deliver on their promises.” Mot. at 18. These uncertainties also raise serious questions as

to the merits of plaintiffs’ dilution by tarnishment claim.

For these reasons, the Court finds it appropriate to enjoin defendants from using

the Olympic Marks in the course of their business.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

B. Irreparable Harm

Plaintiffs argue that defendants’ actions, “if allowed to continue, will both threaten

the exclusivity of the Olympic Parties’ critical sponsorship relationships and risk

permanent damage to the reputation and goodwill of the Olympic Parties and the

Olympic Movement.” Mot. at 33. Plaintiffs argue that “[i]rreparable harm is presumed

both for the Lanham Act and OASA claims.” Id. Plaintiffs further argue that “OlyLife’s

actions tarnish the reputation of the Olympic Parties and Olympic Games by exploiting

the Olympics’ credibility to convince people to make health and business decisions.

When those decisions do not pan out, consumers will associate their negative experiences

with the Olympics.” Id. at 34.

In opposition, defendants argue that plaintiffs’ presumption of irreparable harm is

rebutted by the fact that “Plaintiffs waited until January 6, 2026 to file suit—nearly four

years—despite earlier awareness of OlyLife’s activities,” demonstrating that “Plaintiffs

were in no rush to seek emergency relief.” Opp. at 24. Moreover, defendants argue that

plaintiffs have shown no actual harm because they “identify no lost sponsorship, no lost

licensing dollar, no sponsor complaint, and no consumer-confusion complaint.” Id.

Defendants further argue that their voluntary remediation of their infringing activities and

implementation of safeguards to prevent any recurrence of infringement substantially

reduces the risk of harm to plaintiffs. Id. at 25. Finally, defendants argue that any

remaining harm is compensable through damages. Id.

The Court finds that absent a preliminary injunction, plaintiff will likely suffer

irreparable harm. Some of plaintiff's injuries may be compensable through monetary

damages. However, absent an injunction, should defendants resume their infringing

activities, plaintiffs will likely suffer an irreparable loss of goodwill and loss of control

over their reputation because customers may continue to confuse the Olympic Parties and

the Olympic Movement with defendants’ products and business. Absent an injunction,

plaintiffs will be denied their lawful ability to control who 1s allowed to be associated

with the Olympics. See adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc., 890 F.3d 747, 756 (9th

Cir. 2018) (“‘[E]vidence of loss of control over business reputation and damage to

goodwill [can] constitute irreparable harm,’ so long as there is concrete evidence in the

record of those things.”) (quoting Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v. Fla. Ent. Mgmt., Inc.,

736 F.3d 1239, 1250 (9th Cir. 2013)); San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. US.

Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522, 539 (1987) (“There is no question that ... unauthorized

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

use [of the word ‘Olympic’ could undercut the USOC’s efforts to use, and sell the right

to use, the word in the future, since much of the word’s value comes from its limited use.

Such an adverse effect on the USOC’s activities is directly contrary to Congress’

interest.”). Even if defendants have ceased some of their infringing activities,’ this does

not moot the need for injunctive relief. Cherokee Inc. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., No.

CV 15-04023 BRO EX, 2015 WL 3930041, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2015) (“courts

across jurisdictions have often found the voluntary cessation of infringing conduct

insufficient to moot a preliminary injunction”) (emphasis in original) (citing cases).

C. Balance of Equities

Plaintiffs argue that the balance of equities tips sharply in their favor because

irreparable harm to the Olympic Parties ... outweighs any harm that OlyLife faces

if enjoined from using the OLYLIFE and Olympic Marks.” Mot. at 34. Plaintiffs argue

that “OlyLife has only itself to blame for any hardship an injunction bestows because of

its knowing adoption of the OLYLIFE Mark and brazen use of the Olympic Marks.” Id.

Plaintiffs further argue that because “OlyLife’s U.S. business 1s in its infancy ... any

business interruption should be relatively minimal.” Id. at 35 (citing cases).

In opposition, defendants argue that the balance of equities favor them because

“Plaintiffs” sweeping injunction would effectively destroy a global business operating in

good faith since 2022, forcing simultaneous rebranding across multiple countries, each

with its own trademark, regulatory, and product-labeling regimes.” Opp. at 27.

Moreover, defendants argue that their diligence in promptly removing Olympic reference

and implement compliance monitoring after being put on notice of their infringement

“demonstrates that the equities can be balanced without destroying a lawful business.”

Id.

“The ‘balance of equities’ refers to the relative burdens or hardships to parties,

while the public interest inquiry primarily addresses impact on non-parties rather than

parties.” Conservation Cong. v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 2:12-CV-02800-TLN, 2014 WL

5817206, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2014) (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also

° In any event, as of June 1, 2026, the date of the hearing on plaintiff's motion,

defendants do not appear to have ceased and removed all instances of their infringing

conduct. See Exhibit BB-2 at 26; Ex. DD at 45-46.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Avant! Corp., 125 F.3d 824, 829 (9th Cir. 1997) (“a

defendant who knowingly infringes ... ‘cannot complain of the harm that will befall it

when properly forced to desist from its infringing activities.’”). In this case, the Court

finds that the balance of equities tips in favor of plaintiffs with regard to defendants’

unauthorized use of Olympic Marks.

D. ‘Public Interest

Plaintiff argues that “[t|he public has a strong interest in not being confused about

whether OlyLife’s products are endorsed or sponsored by the Olympics.” Mot. at 35.

They further argue that the public has an especial interest in stopping defendants’

infringement of the Olympic Marks to “ensur[e] the development and safeguarding of the

Olympic Movement and sport.” Id. at 35 (quoting SEAA, 483 U.S. at 534).

Defendants argue that the public interest favors issuance of a tailored injunctive

order. See opp. at 27-28.

“Tn exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard

for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.”

Winter, 555 U.S. at 24. “An injunction that prevents consumer confusion in trademark

cases . . . serves the public interest.”). Am. Rena Int’] Corp. v. Sis-Joyce Int’] Co., 534 F.

App’x 633, 636 (9th Cir. 2013). The Court finds that a tailored injunctive order enjoining

defendants’ infringing activities would further the public interest by protecting plaintiffs’

statutory and common law rights while ensuring that businesses may continue to use non-

infringing marks in the marketplace and otherwise engage in lawful commercial speech.

See San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522, 536-37

(1987).

E. Scope of Relief

Preliminary injunctive relief “must be tailored to remedy the specific harm

alleged.” Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCain Foods, Ltd., 941 F.2d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 1991):

Winter, 555 at 22.

“Defendants are prepared to consent to a preliminary order that would:

(1) prohibit use of the statutory words and any explicit reference to the Olympic

Games or the Olympic Movement in connection with OlyLife products;

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘Oo’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

(11) require the OlyLife Defendants to add a prominent disclaimer that OlyLife is

not affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by the IOC or the USOPC:

(111) require the OlyLife Defendants to maintain ongoing compliance monitoring of

distributor marketing materials; and

(iv) permit continued use of the OLYLIFE mark and logo.”

Opp. at 26.

Defendants argue that such injunctive relief would “address| | every cognizable

risk. It prohibits the Olympic-specific designations the OASA actually protects,

eliminates any suggestion of affiliation through prominent disclaimers, and imposes

continuing distributor-compliance obligations enforceable through this Court’s contempt

power.” Id. They argue that the scope of plaintiffs’ requested relief “goes far beyond

their injury,” and that their “seek[ing] to prohibit ‘any trademark or trade name that

begins with or incorporates the term “OLY” ... is untethered from the statutory rights

Plaintiffs possess and would grant a monopoly over a common three-letter prefix

Congress chose not to protect.” Id.

In reply, plaintiffs argue that defendants’ proposed injunction would not prevent

irreparable harm because “[n]Jo court order can erase that OlyLife means ‘Olympic Life’

from distributors’, customers’, and the internet’s collective memory,” and that “the only

way to prevent irreparable harm is to block use of the OLYLIFE mark altogether, along

with the various OLY-formative marks in use by OlyLife’s affiliates.” Reply at 28.

Plaintiffs also argue that “[t|his case presents a clear application of the ‘safe distance’

tule, as a lingering false connection with the Olympics is likely.” Id. (citing cases).

Plaintiffs argue that “if the OLYLIFE brand 1s allowed to stand, OlyLife’s conduct would

become a blueprint for any company looking to profit off the commercial magnetism of

the Olympics: (1) establish an OLY-formative brand, (2) explain to anyone who will

listen that OLY means Olympic, (3) once caught, promise not to use the Olympic Marks

again, and (4) continue selling under the OLY-formative mark with the benefit of the

already-established false connection that can be implicitly referenced in a number of

creative ways.” Id. at 29.

Plaintiffs also argue that defendants’ the disclaimer component of defendants’

proffered injunction would only further dilute the Olympic Marks because even if

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘Oo’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

consumers understood that OLYLIFE was not associated with or endorsed by the

Olympics, such understanding would, in and of itself, dilute the strong and distinctive

image of the Olympics. See id. at 29.

The Court largely agrees with defendants as to the appropriateness of the scope of

the injunctive relief they propose. As discussed, plaintiffs have been irreparably harmed

and will likely continue to suffer irreparable harm should defendants continue to

advertise and market their products using the Olympic Marks and by associating their

products with the Olympics. However, plaintiffs are not likely to suffer irreparable harm

simply by virtue of defendants’ selling their products using the OLYLIFE or OLY-

formative marks, stripped of any reference to the Olympics, because the use of such

marks does not violate plaintiffs’ statutory rights under the OASA nor does it constitute

trademark infringement.

Although plaintiffs argue that “the first three letters of the OLYLIFE mark will

forever carry a reminder of that false and poisonous connection” to the Olympics, Reply

at 26 (emphasis in original), the Court is not persuaded. Defendants’ expert survey

indicates that consumers are not likely to associate “OLYLIFE” with the Olympics. Dkt.

60-9, Cohen Rpt. §§ V-VI. Nor does the Court find that enjoining defendants’ use of the

OLYLIFE or OLY-formative marks is appropriate at this trme. See 4 McCarthy on

Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 30:4 (Sth ed.) (discussing the “safe distance” rule

under which “a court has the discretionary power to enjoin an act, which if done alone

would be legal, but when performed in the context of a totality of acts constitutes some

form of infringement or unfair competition.”). Should defendants continue to use their

marks in an infringing manner in the future, plaintiffs may seek further injunctive relief

from the Court. See Wolfard Glassblowing Co. v. Vanbragt, 118 F.3d 1320, 1323 (9th

Cir. 1997) (noting that a trademark infringer “should have its conduct carefully

scrutinized in future use and should not be allowed to claim the same leniency accorded a

good faith user.”’) (citations omitted).

F. Bond

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), after obtaining a preliminary

injunction, the plaintiff must post a bond in an amount that would pay the costs and

damages sustained by another party in the event that the court later determines that the

bond should not have been issued. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). District courts have broad

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘Oo’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

discretion when setting the amount of the bond. GoTo.com. Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202

F.3d 1199, 1211 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, despite the seemingly-mandatory language

in Rule 65(c), the Ninth Circuit has instructed district courts that they may dispense with

the bond requirement altogether in certain circumstances, for example, when “there is no

realistic likelihood of harm to the defendant from enjoining his or her conduct.” Johnson

v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1085 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320

F.3d 906, 910 (9th Cir. 2003)). Similarly, when the plaintiff establishes a strong

likelihood of success on the merits, the district court has the discretion to impose a

“minimal bond or no bond at all.” Van de Kamp v. Tahoe Reg’] Planning Agency, 766

F.2d 1319, 1326 (9th Cir. 1985).

Defendants argue that “|a|ny preliminary injunction [issued by the Court] must be

conditioned on a substantial bond commensurate with th[e] costs” that defendants would

incur if they are later found to have been wrongfully enjoined. Opp. at 28. Defendants

argue that these costs are “substantial” and include those associated with “redesigning

packaging, marketing materials, and websites across multiple jurisdictions; rebuilding

disrupted distributor and customer relationships; and lost sales during the rebranding

transition.” Id.

In reply, plaintiffs argue that “a bond is not warranted because [they have made an|

overwhelming showing of [their] likelihood of success on the merits.” Reply at 32.

In this case, because plaintiffs have established a strong likelihood of success on

the merits of their OASA and trademark infringement claims, the Court finds that

imposing a bond is not necessary. See 2Die4Kourt v. Hillair Cap. Mgmt.. LLC, No.

SACV1601304JVSDFMX, 2016 WL 4487895, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2016), aff'd,

692 F. App’x 366 (9th Cir. 2017) (waiving the bond requirement in part because

plaintiffs had established a strong likelihood of success on the merits). The Court’s

injunction enjoins defendants’ clearly infringing uses of the Olympic Marks.!°

10 The Court notes that defendants agree that this limited injunction is appropriate. See

Opp. at 26.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

V. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES

IN PART plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) Defendants are enjoined from, for the purpose of trade or in commerce, using

any explicit reference to the Olympic Games or the Olympic Movement, including,

but not limited to, any trademarks registered by the Olympic Parties, the Olympic

Rings symbol and the words “Olympic” and “Olympiad”, or any combination or

simulation of those words tending to cause confusion or mistake, to deceive, or to

falsely suggest a connection with the Olympics. Defendants shall remove all such

references from any and all corporate-controlled websites, social-media accounts,

and marketing materials.

(11) Defendants are enjoined from, for the purpose of trade or in commerce, using

any trademark, trade name, sign, symbol, slogan, or insignia falsely representing

an association with, or authorization by, the Olympic Parties. Defendants shall

remove all such references from any and all corporate-controlled websites, social-

media accounts, and marketing materials. This prohibition includes defendants’

use of the terms “Champion’s Choice,” “Athlete’s Choice,” or any similar

language that falsely suggests OlyLife’s association with the Olympic Parties or

the Olympics.

(111) Defendants shall promptly direct all of their distributors to immediately refrain

from using any Olympic-related imagery, symbols, or language, as specified in (1)

and (11) above, in connection with the marketing or sale of OlyLife products.

(iv) Defendants shall maintain ongoing compliance monitoring of their third-party

distributors’ conduct and take appropriate measures in the event of their

noncompliance with this order, including terminating their contractual

relationships with noncomplying distributors.

(v) Defendants shall promptly add a prominent disclaimer on all of their websites

and social media sites, and on all of their products and marketing materials, that

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’

Case No. 2:26-cv-00126-CAS-KESx Date June 3, 2026

Title Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and

Export Co., Ltd. et al.

OlyLife is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by any Olympic Party or

the Olympics.

(vi) Defendants are enjoined from using, registering, selling, or transferring, any

domain names or social media accounts or handles accessible from the United

States that use the Olympic Marks or otherwise suggest that OlyLife is affiliated

with the Olympics or an Olympic entity.

The Court DENIES without prejudice plaintiffs’ request to enjoin defendants from

using the OLYLIFE and OLY-formative Marks, including but not limited to, OLY

NATION and OLY PROCESSING.

The Court DENIES without prejudice plaintiffs’ request to enjoin defendants from

using, registering, selling, or transferring, any domain names or social media accounts or

handles accessible from the United States that feature an OLYLIFE or OLY-formative

mark.

The Court directs counsel for plaintiffs to serve and file a proposed form of

preliminary injunction that is consistent with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

00 : 00

Initials of Preparer OM