First of all, not-for-profit institutions that are not connected with a business wouldn't fall within the scope of this piece of legislation. Therefore, we'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. In certain cases community centres or aboriginal groups that don't conduct business per se might not fall within the scope of the legislation; therefore, there might not be any need for an exception.
Second, this is intellectual property; intellectual property, generally speaking, belongs to the rights holder, and the rights holder has the exclusive right to determine what he or she wants to do with it. To that extent, I think this mirrors conceptually what intellectual property is all about. The Olympic brand belongs to a few, and therefore it is up to them to decide how best to license that brand.