There is a clear difference between protecting commercial interests in terms of association with a sponsored event and ‘owning words’.  It would be both illegal and impractical for a sponsor to ‘buy’ the word “London”. The rules make it clear that they are not attempting to infringe on, for example, the right of journalists to report the Games nor on people to discuss them. A simple Google search will bring up thousands of articles – like this one – using the Olympic rings, the phrase “London 2012” and many of the others words and phrases that concern Proposition. At no point have the news organisations concerned been asked to pay. There is clearly a world of difference between an existing magazine running a feature about the event – indeed several features – and the creation of a one-off special publication stuffed full of advertising for a direct competitor of the event.  An equivalent would be paying for a meal in a restaurant only to see that everyone else was eating for free. That is the infringement of natural justice. Sponsors have paid to have a certain association with the Games and it is both fair and reasonable that they should get that association in a way that does not allow their competitors to get a free lunch.  It is ridiculous to suggest that this is tantamount to ‘owning words’ as Proposition has done. To start with the preclusions cited here are temporary, additionally they are only in reference to this event. It would seem to be in everyone’s interest for sponsorship of sport and the arts to continue, for that to happen, they sponsors need to get something in return.