Spurr's case, while extreme, is not unique. He was told he faced a fine of close to $40,000 if he refused to take down his display. In a show of mock defiance, he turned his sausage rings into squares, but the Olympic police descended once more.
Further down the south coast from Weymouth, which will host the Olympic sailing regatta, a Plymouth café was told to take a flaming torch breakfast baguette off the menu. In Stoke-on-Trent, an enterprising florist put an Olympic display in the window only for Locog to send out a cease-and-desist envoy.
The British Sugarcraft Guild, that well-known bastion of anti-establishmentarianism, was told its planned cake-decorating competition would have to be canned after they decided an Olympic theme would be appropriate in 2012.
"The 2012 logo, the mascots or the traditional Olympic rings must not be used in any part of the displays," the IOC wrote to the guild, effectively destroying the purpose of the show (the cakes were not going to be sold either, so there was no suggestion of using the Olympic brand for commercial gain).
Honestly, you couldn't make this stuff up.
You can eat fish and chips in Olympic Park but that is a very British exception - every other combination with chips can only be sold at McDonald's, the official French fry supplier of the Games.
Heaven forbid you're not the type of person who reaches into his or her drawers in the morning and throws on whatever first comes to hand. Lord Coe, Locog chair, admitted in a radio interview last week that if you turn up at the gate wearing a Pepsi shirt, you'd probably get turned away "because Coca-Cola are our sponsor and they have put millions of pounds into this project".
Borrowing from the IOC's book of over-reaction, critics have branded the issue as a threat to democracy. While it is unlikely we will see Jacques Rogge and his colonels rolling down The Strand in Visa-liveried tanks, there is something slightly discomfiting about legislation - the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act (2006) - that threatens legal action against any advertisers using two words from a list that includes "Games" and "2012", or conjoining any of those words with a slightly less prestigious list including "gold", "London" and "summer".
It is this legislation that has enabled butchers, bakers and cakemakers to be targeted. As The Spectator archly declared: "Common nouns are now private property."
There is nothing new with ambush marketing. The most recent high-profile case occurred at the Fifa World Cup in 2010, when two Dutch women were arrested for arranging 36 orange-clad women to enter Soweto's Soccer City stadium during the Netherlands match against Denmark. They were accused of promoting a rival brewery to official sponsors Heineken.
The arrest might have seemed heavy-handed and there was little sympathy for the stunt itself - but there's a quantum leap between that crass opportunism and a cake-decorating competition.
The key word is perspective. Nobody would argue that the key sponsors have paid their money and deserve their moment in the sun.
Usain Bolt crossing the line, performing his pose and then ripping the tab off a Pepsi would be a bad look. Planes flying over the main stadium trailing a large MasterCard banner would be irresponsible.
A butcher doing curious things with chorizo, black pudding and boerewors - sorry Seb, sorry Jacques, you've made right pork chops out of yourselves there.
