It's not a question of humor. It's a question of defending your trademark. If you fail to defend the trademark, you can lose it. Although in this case, my guess is there is no infringement because it's being used as parody.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights

In the case of a trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark in the lawful course of trade, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to become liable for an application for the removal from the register after a certain period of time on the grounds of "non-use".

And I thought you righties were supposed to be the business experts!

In the case of the Olympic trademark, the IOC would have to prove that the name Redneck Olympics suggested a connection to or a sanctioning by the IOC. Apparently only Russ is willing to make that leap.

Listening to Russ explain law is almost as as amusing as listening to Crowley explain economics.

I thought good progressives were supposed to defer to the "experts" on everything.

"It's not a question of humor. It's a question of defending your trademark. If you fail to defend the trademark, you can lose it."

True, but let's think it over. The term "olympics" has been around for 2400 years ago. If the committee has a "trademark", it is by act of Congress. Gogress passed a special law granting the USOC the exclusive right to use the term. Why do I suspect lobbyists, etc? If memory serves, there is more than just a little corruption in the USOC selection of cities to host the games.

Being from a part of America where they abound, I like rednecks. I have every respect for bio-chemsts. But, I was in a scrapyard today; while the owner does play chess at lunch, I am sure he considers himself a redneck. Anyway, his crane broke a link. After shuffling around a bit, he picked up some scrap metal and a torch. He then proceeded to make himself a new link. There is something admirable in that. He is also paying about $225 a ton for scarp. I think about $1500 in happy campers left after he got the crane fixed.

He also sold me some cast iron legs for my lathe, I suppose I should roll my collar up a bit.

"Listening to Russ explain law is almost as as amusing as listening to Crowley explain economics."

Hey, just telling you what my attorneys told me. How may trademarks have you experts registered anyway? Do tell.

And, Dan, as always you are welcome to ignore the advice of experts. (what was that they say about a man who acts as his own lawyer?)

True, but let's think it over. The term "olympics" has been around for 2400 years ago.

So has the word "apple", even longer than 2400 years I suppose, but I wouldn't suggest you try to incorportate under Apple RI, Inc. unless you like receiving nasty letters from attorneys.

Russ,

As I mentioned, the USOC has exclusive use of the word "Olympics", by act of Congress, not by trademark registration. That in itself "smells". I don't think it correlates directly with the law of trademarks.

As to your example of Apple, I suspect that trademark may be on the bitten apple logo (which sugggests they couldn't get a trademark on a logo of a whole apple), not the word Apple. Do you think "Wonder Bread" has a trademark on "bread"? Think about it, do you think an apple farm would be in trouble if it called itself "RI Apple". Do you think "Apple computer" gives Apple any rights in the word "computer"?

A further note, since the USOC has exclusive rights to a word by act of Congress, it probably has better rights than trademark registration. I suspect it was not possible to trademark a word in common usage. So, they made an end run. I am not sure that I can see the "righteousness' on that one. I think they bought, or cajoled, Congress.

Russ

What you have here at AR is a kind of Special Olympics for lawyers and economists.

Do you think "Apple computer" gives Apple any rights in the word "computer"?

I was thinking specifically of this from a few years back...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

Between 1978 and 2006 there were a number of legal disputes between Apple Corps (owned by The Beatles) and the computer manufacturer Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) over competing trademark rights. The High Court of Justice handed down a judgment on 8 May 2006 in favour of Apple Computer, but the companies did not announce a final settlement until 5 February 2007.

I was thinking yesterday how it's kind of funny for the local leftie to be accused of too ardent a support for property rights. Max, if you look above my personal take was that Redneck Olympics should not be considered an infringement because of the protection in the law for parody.

Personally, I don't see why a business like Olympic Pizza or Olympic Meat Packing should be considered an infringement, but was WF correctly noted that's what Congress legislated.

Russ, you said: "It's not a question of humor. It's a question of defending your trademark. If you fail to defend the trademark, you can lose it."

I didn't deny your application of parody. I merely pointed out that even before the your parody defense, the Olympic Committee would have a tough time establishing a case against the Redneck Olympics. The rest of my comment was just a little tit for tat.