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. ;)
