FWIW, the Associated Press Stylebook has an entry for Olymipcs, and all it says is to capitalize it when referring to the international games (but lowercase in generic uses). Super Bowl also has an entry that just says “Super Bowl.” There is nothing in the stylebook about avoiding their use, and I’ve never heard of either phrase being problematic when being used in an editorial context.
- There could be no reasonable confusion or damage to the USOC or any other party from a few restaurants using Olympic in the name and therefor no basis for a suit.
As Homer would say, “let the baby have his bottle”. It’s the Puppy Bowl for me 
No. This is not a possibility with respect to the Olympics, because as I said, the relevant statute gives extraordinary rights to the U.S.O.C. Specifically, it does not have to show confusion or likelihood of confusion in order to stop you from using “Olympics” or one of their other trademarks.
I’m not sure why you would expect the AP style book to tell you to avoid using trademarks in an editorial context. There is pretty much zero chance that a trademark appearing in a news story will constitute a trademark violation.
This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in San Francisco Arts and Athletics v. U.S. Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987). The U.S.O.C. has no obligation to show likelihood of confusion in order to stop an unauthorized use of the term “Olympic.” The Supreme Court decision was later incorporated into the Ted Stevens Act.
Another cite that journalists have no reason to avoid the words.
You mean the Big Puppy Playtime–I hear those Animal Planet lawyers are fierce. 
It can be both. The Puppy Bowl is on 3-5 PM EST, the Superb Owl kickoff isn’t until 6:30 or so.
Not really though. The style book isn’t designed to give advice on avoiding liability in trademark law.
The stylebook does recommend against using some words or phrases in certain contexts, like if they are offensive, and it says reporters should use generic equivalents (bandage vs. Band-Aid) unless a specific trademark is necessary to a story. There’s no advice to that end in the Super Bowl entry.
Speaking of Colbert, I’m loving the over-top-intros for his Superb Owl episodes this week that feature him screaming and breathing fire.
True. But it does dispense legal advice in terms of libel law, so I’d be a little surprised if they let the trademark law implications slip by the radar for the last, oh, however many decades.
Still, you’re right, that’s not proof. Has a news agency every gotten hassled for using “Super Bowl” in an editorial context? I haven’t seen it cited yet in this thread. It seems to me that it would me somewhat at odds with freedom of the press. After all, newspapers aren’t required to Photoshop out trademarks in photographs, and they write stories on trademarked items all the time. How could you write the news if you couldn’t refer to a company’s trademarked items?
It is specifically written as a style book and libel manual. It is not designed to deal with other kinds of legal issues. It lets all trademark (and contract and property and civil procedure and every other kind of law) slip by the radar. It’s not a comprehensive legal manual for journalism.
You won’t see a cite because it simply doesn’t happen. It’s a very settled area of the law.
When I subscribed to the Columbia Journalism Review, they would periodically print a list of trademarked words and their generic equivalents. For example, you might be writing an article that mentions that a body was found in a dumpster. But “Dumpster” is, or was, a trademark. If the specific container you’re referring to isn’t actually one from that company, they would suggest using the generic equivalent. (And even when you do use the trademark, I believe you’re supposed to phrase it like, “Dumpster brand waste container,” using the trademark as an adjective and not a noun. But it’s been years since I kept up with this stuff.)
I’m not a sports fan and I think the whole thing is silly. But a local radio station is doing something funny, they talk about the super bowl on the air but they bleep “super bowl” out like it’s profanity.
Why? As it has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, there is no problem using the term Super Bowl unless it is used in conjunction with advertising a product that isn’t licensed by the NFL.
To the extent that journalists would prefer to use generic terms, it is in the interest of accuracy, not because it’s a legal problem to use a brand name.
There is no legal reason to have such a rule. And I’ve never seen a style guide for journalists that mandates “X brand Y” form. It sounds stupid and there’s no reason for it. If a newspaper was being picky, they would say “X Y,” as in “Dumpster waste container.” But if it is genuinely a Dumpster brand container, then there’s no problem calling it a “Dumpster,” without further verbiage.
Now, the trademark owner might prefer you to say “X brand Y,” and they might even send you a letter saying so, but no journalist need heed such a request.
I’ve never seen this. It would be distracting and weird.
Raveman is right. But there were several “The Catch”'s(<–LOL). Maybe you can find the one you thought you were talking about, AB.