# Opinion > District Court, C.D. California · June 3, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11382901 ## Case - **Full name:** Comite International Olympique et al. v. Xiamen Olymate Import and Export Co., Ltd. et al. - **Court:** District Court, C.D. California - **Decided:** June 3, 2026 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11382901 ## Opinion text 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. “