That's exactly the same problem, isn't it? If someone were to pay to be the Official Provider of Carparks to the games, they don't want everyone else to be able to write something which makes it look like they are too. For a slightly more realistic example, lots of places are providing food to people attending the event, but McDonalds pays a lot of money so that they're the only ones that can advertise as "London 2012 Restaurant" or whatever.

I don't see how you can possibly trademark a year, which is a factual statement.

You can get away with a lot in specific cases of trademarks. For example, Cadbury have been able to exert some protection of their usage of purple, but only for chocolate wrappers - not for everything. Similarly here, I can see how the IOC or LOCOG or whoever can exert control over "London 2012" which has a huge association with their brand. Generally it comes down to a fuzzy test of "would it be misleading", and for most people "London 2012 Hotel" probably would be if the hotel wasn't really associated with the event.

I don't think anybody questions if this is legal in the UK. Just if this is sane. And it clearly is not. Of course, I can see why there should be a trademark for "London Olympics 2012", but why for just the city name and the year?

Also, I think it really clashes with the supposed spirit of the games. If it is not a friendly, peaceful and international battle of athletes, but just another event where McDonald's and Samsung can advertise without any distractions, why do we need it? And why should a city finance it?

> Cadbury have been able to exert some protection of their usage of purple

To be fair, Cadbury has trademarked a specific tint of paint that they created (which is the important bit). It just looks surprisingly like purple to the rest of us. ;)

You enshrine it as a by-law of the games.

"Clive's Parking. 1/2 mile from the Olympic venue."

"Half Mile Parking."