Legal Battle Unfolds: International Olympics Committee Sues MLM Company OlyLife Over Alleged Olympic Impersonation
A significant legal confrontation is underway in California, where the International Olympics Committee (IOC) has filed a lawsuit against OlyLife and several associated entities. The core of the complaint, lodged on January 6th, 2026, alleges that OlyLife, a multi-level marketing (MLM) company, has falsely represented an association with the Olympic Games and infringed upon the IOC’s valuable trademark rights.
OlyLife has been identified as an MLM company, which the original source behind this article explicitly labels as a “pyramid scheme run by Chinese scammers operating from Singapore and Malaysia.” This serious allegation is crucial context for understanding the IOC’s concerns and the court’s subsequent considerations.
The Defendants and Allegations
The IOC’s California lawsuit names a range of OlyLife defendants, highlighting the company’s international reach and varied corporate structures:
- Xiamen Olymate Import & Export Co. LTD.
- Oly Processing LLC
- OlyLife International SDN. BHD.
- OlyLife International PTE. LTD.
- OlyLife (Thailand) Co. LTD.
- PT. Olylife International Indonesia
- OlyLife Indonesia
In its comprehensive fifty-five page Complaint, the IOC asserts that OlyLife is “wrongfully exploiting the Olympic intellectual property by using the trademark and trade name OLYLIFE (the ‘OLYLIFE Mark’) to make and sell a variety [of] products that it claims have health benefits.” The lawsuit emphatically states that OlyLife is not an official Olympic sponsor, yet it deliberately adopted the OLYLIFE Mark “to create the false and misleading impression that it is.”
OlyLife’s alleged misrepresentation begins with its very name, as the company explicitly states “Oly = Olympics” and declares that “OlyLife passionately means living an Olympic Life!” Beyond the name, the company has reportedly made widespread use of iconic Olympic symbols, including the Olympic Rings, and terms such as “OLYMPIC” and “OLYMPIAN,” alongside other imagery directly associated with the Olympic Games in its marketing materials.
The IOC further argues that OlyLife is “intentionally and willfully trading on the reputation, goodwill, and cachet of the Olympic Games to lend credibility to its infringing products and its MLM business model.” This deliberate strategy, the Committee contends, seeks to “encourage consumers to make health, career, and life choices based on the false premise that it is associated with the Olympic Movement and that it is advancing the Olympic Spirit.”
The potential harm to the IOC is significant. The lawsuit claims that OlyLife’s false association, if unchecked, would cause “irreparable harm,” jeopardize “vital funding provided by the Olympic licensing programs,” and fundamentally “jeopardize the reputation and goodwill of the Olympic Movement.”
A Timely Lawsuit and Opaque Leadership
The lawsuit was filed on January 6th, 2026, just three days before OlyLife’s scheduled “North America Kick Off Event.” Promotional materials for this event, cited in the IOC’s complaint, mention individuals like Brian Lee (Master Distributor), Paul Hsuei (OlyLife Ambassador), and a “Mr. Wong” as an OlyLife co-founder.
The use of titles like “Mr.,” “Mrs.,” or “Ms.” with only a first name, particularly in promotional contexts, is often a tactic observed in certain high-risk online schemes to obscure the full identities of those in leadership positions. OlyLife’s own website notably lacks detailed disclosure of its ownership or executive team. While Jenni Ma has been identified as CEO, and was seen at a March 2026 promotional event in Malaysia, other co-founders, including “Mr. Wong,” largely remain out of public view, operating behind their network of promoters.
Court filings in the IOC case, however, have brought some shareholder and executive names to light:
- Luo Haocheng (shareholder in OlyLife International Pte. Ltd. and OlyLife (Thailand) Co. Ltd.)
- Adeia Fazira (shareholder in Pt. Olylife International Indonesia)
- Wang Siyi (shareholder in Xiamen Olympay Import & Export Co. Ltd.)
- Wang Yihan (shareholder in OlyLife Limited)
- Yee Jin Yeong (Director of OlyLife International Sd. Bhd.)
- Jack Conley (of Oly Processing LLC)
Despite these individuals being identified through legal proceedings, their roles and involvement are generally not transparently presented to consumers on OlyLife’s public platforms, which can be a significant red flag for potential investors or participants.
Court Proceedings and Preliminary Injunction
The IOC’s lawsuit outlined ten causes of action, including:
- False association under the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (OASA)
- Violation of the OASA through the use of Olympic Names and Symbols
- Trademark infringement (both federal and common law)
- Unfair competition, false designation of origin, and passing off
- Federal dilution of famous marks
- Trademark dilution
- Cybersquatting (related to OlyLife’s website domains)
By February 18th, all OlyLife defendants had been served, and following several extension requests, OlyLife filed its answer to the IOC’s Complaint on March 31st. The IOC then moved for a preliminary injunction on April 3rd, seeking to prevent OlyLife and its promoters from using any company names beginning with “Oly-” and to halt ongoing false representations of Olympic association.
After a hearing on June 1st, where mediation between the parties was also ordered, the court partially granted the IOC’s motion for a preliminary injunction on June 3rd. The court concluded that:
- Likely OASA Violation: Plaintiffs (IOC) demonstrated that OlyLife defendants had “likely violated the OASA by using the Olympic Rings and the ‘Olympic’ in marketing their products and by using insignia that falsely represent an association with, or authorization by Olympic entities.”
- “Oly-” Formative Marks: The court found that defendants’ use of “OlyLife” and other “Oly-” formative marks, when stripped of any Olympic-specific reference, would not likely violate the OASA.
- Trademark Infringement: While likely to succeed on claims based on the use of Olympic Rings or the word “Olympic,” the IOC was not likely to succeed on claims based solely on the use of the “OlyLife Marks” themselves.
- Trademark Dilution (Tarnishment): This was a critical point. The court found “serious questions going to the merits” regarding dilution by tarnishment. The judge noted that while MLM can be lawful, “given the similarities between MLM business models and illicit pyramid schemes,” there were “serious questions as to whether the Olympic Marks could suffer negative associations” from OlyLife’s business. Furthermore, the court highlighted concerns that OlyLife’s “bold health claims that have not been evaluated or endorsed by the Olympic Parties” created a “significant risk of reputation harm to the Olympics.” For these reasons, the court deemed it appropriate to enjoin defendants from using the Olympic Marks in their business.
- Irreparable Harm: The court concluded that the IOC would “likely suffer irreparable harm” without a preliminary injunction.
In essence, the court ordered OlyLife to cease referencing the Olympics and using the IOC’s trademarks and symbols. However, the IOC’s request for an injunction explicitly barring the use of “Oly-” company names was denied.
Compliance and Further Appeals
Following the injunction, OlyLife was required to publish a notice on its websites clarifying its lack of association with the Olympics. An “important notice” was subsequently published, giving OlyLife promoters until July 20th to comply, threatening legal action against those who failed to do so. The notice stated that “All legal liabilities arising from the Relevant Conduct shall be borne solely by the relevant distributors, and Olylife shall assume no responsibility therefor.”
However, a quick investigation by BehindMLM as of August 9th (twenty days after OlyLife’s stated compliance deadline) revealed numerous persistent violations, with Olympic imagery and references still accessible in OlyLife’s online presence.
Further complicating matters, the IOC filed a motion on June 17th requesting a stay on a disclaimer provision within the injunction. The IOC argued that requiring OlyLife to place disclaimers that mentioned “the Olympics” (even to state a lack of association) would inadvertently further associate the company with the IOC’s trademarks. This motion was unopposed by OlyLife and granted by the court on July 14th, with the disclaimer provision ultimately removed from the injunction order.
Concurrently, on July 1st, the IOC filed an appeal against the preliminary injunction order itself with the 9th Circuit. This appeal targets both the sections of the injunction that were denied (specifically regarding the use of “Oly-” names) and the original disclaimer provision.
On June 20th, OlyLife filed a Compliance Report stating, among other things, that it had “requested platform owners for WeChat, Weibo, Douyin, Xiaohongshu/RED, and Meta, to remove any content displaying or otherwise associating OlyLife with Olympic-related material or references.” Whether concrete action has been taken against individual non-compliant promoters who continue to falsely associate OlyLife with the Olympics remains unclear.
Implications for Online Investors and MLM Participants
This ongoing legal battle serves as a stark reminder of the risks associated with certain online investment opportunities and MLM companies. For individuals considering involvement, several critical points emerge:
- Deceptive Marketing: Companies making unauthorized associations with globally recognized brands like the Olympics often use this perceived credibility to attract participants. Such tactics are a major red flag, suggesting a reliance on misleading claims rather than legitimate business practices.
- Opaque Leadership: A lack of transparency regarding company ownership and executive teams, as seen with OlyLife, makes it difficult to assess the legitimacy and experience of those running the operation, increasing the risk for participants.
- Unverified Claims: OlyLife’s “bold health claims” for its products, unendorsed by the Olympic Parties, highlight the potential for unsubstantiated product benefits, which can be characteristic of schemes designed primarily for recruitment rather than genuine product sales.
- Business Model Scrutiny: The court’s acknowledgment of “serious questions” regarding the similarities between MLM business models and illicit pyramid schemes underscores the inherent risks in ventures where the primary focus might be recruitment over sustainable product sales. Participants should exercise extreme caution when evaluating compensation plans.
- Legal Entanglement: As this case demonstrates, involvement with companies facing such lawsuits can lead to legal complications, reputational damage, and financial losses for participants and promoters.
As the International Olympics Committee continues its lawsuit against OlyLife, this case serves as a crucial example of the importance of thorough due diligence and skepticism when encountering online investment opportunities, particularly those within the MLM sector, that make grand, potentially unauthorized, claims.
