First of all, you can ignore all of Mr. Anderson's remarks about trademarks, because the US Olympic Committee has their own statute - entirely apart from trademark law - concerning use of the term Olympic, and THAT is the legal basis for the ongoing court case involving a very large number of domain names registered to Americans and containing "olympic" terms.
If you read the ACPA (start at section d here):
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1125.html
...you'll notice the reference to "section 220506 of title 36". That section is otherwise known as the Jim Thorpe Amateur Athletics Act. It is part of the charter of the US Olympic Committee (and, yes, to the commentator above, the International Committee fully endorses this law). The operative part is as follows:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+36USC220506
Sec. 220506. Exclusive right to name, seals, emblems, and badges
(a) Exclusive Right of Corporation.--Except as provided in
subsection (d) of this section, the corporation has the exclusive right
to use--
(1) the name ``United States Olympic Committee'';
(2) the symbol of the International Olympic Committee,
consisting of 5 interlocking rings, the symbol of the International
Paralympic Committee, consisting of 3 TaiGeuks, or the symbol of the
Pan-American Sports Organization, consisting of a torch surrounded
by concentric rings;
(3) the emblem of the corporation, consisting of an escutcheon
having a blue chief and vertically extending red and white bars on
the base with 5 interlocking rings displayed on the chief; and
(4) the words ``Olympic'', ``Olympiad'', ``Citius Altius
Fortius'', ``Paralympic'', ``Paralympiad'', ``Pan-American'',
``America Espirito Sport Fraternite'', or any combination of those
words.
[and if you care about the exceptions, i.e. the reason WHY you see other trademarks and uses of the word "Olympic"}:
(d) Pre-Existing and Geographic Reference Rights.--(1) A person who
actually used the emblem described in subsection (a)(3) of this section,
or the words or any combination of the words described in subsection
(a)(4) of this section, for any lawful purpose before September 21,
1950, is not prohibited by this section from continuing the lawful use
for the same purpose and for the same goods or services.
(2) A person who actually used, or whose assignor actually used, the
words or any combination of the words described in subsection (a)(4) of
this section, or a trademark, trade name, sign, symbol, or insignia
described in subsection (c)(4) of this section, for any lawful purpose
before September 21, 1950, is not prohibited by this section from
continuing the lawful use for the same purpose and for the same goods or
services.
(3) Use of the word ``Olympic'' to identify a business or goods or
services is permitted by this section where--
(A) such use is not combined with any of the intellectual
properties referenced in subsections \1\ (a) or (c) of this section;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ So in original. Probably should be ``subsection''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) it is evident from the circumstances that such use of the
word ``Olympic'' refers to the naturally occurring mountains or
geographical region of the same name that were named prior to
February 6, 1998, and not to the corporation or any Olympic
activity; and
(C) such business, goods, or services are operated, sold, and
marketed in the State of Washington west of the Cascade Mountain
range and operations, sales, and marketing outside of this area are
not substantial.
-----------------
Okay, so, the bottom line is basically that you can use the word "Olympic" in the US as a business identifier if you are in Olympia Washington, or if you were doing so before 1950 (such as the paint and varnish people). There is nothing in there about "passing off", which Mr. Anderson believes is the only existing cause of action relating to trademarks. In any event, the law relating to the word "Olympic" stands on its own and is not about trademarks.
Now, here's what's going on with your domain name. There is a longstanding suit involving about a bazillion olympic-formative domain names. As per the rules that the registrars - all of the registrars - are required to follow, these names were locked up on hold a long time ago. You can find more than you ever wanted to know about the suit, and the list of the bazillion domain names, here:
http://www.sgbdc.com/IOCinremsuit.htm
The problem is that a while back, some of the registrars screwed up and released a bunch of these domain names, despite the fact that there had been court orders relevant to these domain names. Now, if you bother to read your domain name registration contract - ANY domain name registration contract, it doesn't matter which registrar - they have full power to correct any "registration errors" or to do whatever they are ordered by a court to do.
I would be interested to know how long you had the domain name. The firm pursuing the suit has been chasing after these names as time permits, and it sounds like they finally caught up with yours. So, the bottom line is that, yes, there probably was a court order, but no, you didn't hear about it because it probably pre-dated your registration.
