Gift Focus Magazine - Wholesale gifts for trade buyers

Back to Articles

Let the games begin

On 6th July 2005, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) chose London as the host of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Although 2012 may seem a long way off, the UK government has already passed special laws to tackle what they anticipate as problematic ambush marketing.
‘Ambush marketing’ is marketing which aims to associate products or services with a popular event without paying official sponsorship fees. Ambush marketing is seen as a form of ‘free-riding’. Given the significance of the Olympic Games, there was a real fear that such behaviour could de-value the integrity of the Games and put at risk the sponsorship deals needed to fund them. Businesses are inevitably reluctant to pay huge sponsorship fees when their competitors can gain much the same advertising benefits without paying anything. For example, imagine Carlsberg’s frustration as official sponsors of Euro 2004 when Heineken managed an effective advertising campaign by giving away branded foam megaphones and hats outside the football venues.
Originally the UK enacted the Olympic Symbol etc (Protection) Act 1995 to protect the Olympic symbols. Under the 1995 Act it is unlawful to use the Olympic five-ring symbol, the Olympic moto “citius, altius, fortius” and words such as Olympic, Olympiad and Olympium in the course of a trade without the consent of the British Olympic Association (BOA).
Now, however, the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”), which came into force on 30th March 2006, extends the BOA’s powers to protect rights associated with the Olympics and to police traders’ attempts to unlawfully associate themselves with the London Olympics.
The ‘London Olympic
Association Right’
The 2006 Act creates a new, specific form of intellectual property right called the London Olympic Association Right which can only be used with the consent of the BOA – for which it will inevitably wish to charge a substantial fee. The 2006 Act also goes much further by making provision for dealing with those who attempt to make an association with the London Olympic Games without using the specific words or symbols associated with the Olympics but who use visual or verbal representations to the same end. By way of example, during the 1996 Sydney Olympics the following visual representation was used by Telecom Mobile in their press advertisement:

ring           ring
         ring
    ring    ring

If this type of representation were to be used in the course of a trade in the UK in the run-up to the London 2012 Olympics it would constitute an infringement of the London Olympic Association Right.
There is, however, a limited media exception to this form of infringement for the purposes of normal media publications. Of course visual and verbal representations which are made to publish or to broadcast a sporting event at the Games will not infringe.

The forbidden 2-word combinations
Under the 2006 Act the specific combination of certain words will be deemed automatically to create an association with the Olympics if used during the course of trade and therefore such use is banned. Combining the words “games” and “2012”/ “two thousand and twelve” or “twenty twelve” will lead to an infringement of the London Olympic Association Right in most situations. In addition, if this expression is combined with any one or more of the words “gold”, “silver”, “bronze”, “London”, “medals”, “sponsor” or “summer” this would almost always constitute an infringement.
Only where the use of the ‘forbidden combination’ is in accordance with honest commercial and industrial practices will no infringement ensue. This defence is very vague and we cannot be sure how it will operate in practice. One example where such use could be deemed an honest business use would be a bus company advertising travel services “from Hull to London to watch the Summer Olympics 2012”. In that example the forbidden combination of words are quite necessary to allow the company to describe its business services.

A New Paralympic Right
A “Paralympic Association Right” is also created by the 2006 Act so that all references to the London Olympic Association Right will apply equally to the Paralympic Association Right. Also the use of words such as Paralympic, Paralympian, Paralympiad in the course of a trade without the consent of the BOA is banned.

Advertising in the “Vicinity” of Olympic venues
The Secretary of State is required to draft Regulations to control poster advertising and marketing activities within the vicinity of the Games venues. He potentially has the power to prohibit all poster advertising by non-sponsors on all billboards around the stadia.

Fines for infringement
Those people responsible for infringements, of the rights set out in the 2006 Act, occurring between 30th May 2006 and 31st December 2012 may be liable for a fine of up to £20,000 and a criminal conviction.

Additional Powers of Enforcement
The 2006 Act gives trading standards officers wide enforcement powers and HMRC officers can now detain goods, which would infringe the London Olympic Association Right, on entry into the UK.

Trade Marks
“London 2012” has been registered as a Community Trade Mark (CTM) by the IOC for an exceptionally wide range of goods and services. “London 2012” has also been registered by the BOA as a UK Trade Mark for largely the same range of goods and services as the CTM.
The use of these text Trade Marks by anyone in the course of a trade without the owner’s consent (both the IOC and the BOA for use in the UK) will amount to infringement of the Trade Mark.
The IOC has even attempted to register “2012” as a CTM in respect of a very wide spectrum of goods and services. This application is still pending but it would be severely impractical if the application were actually granted and a monopoly over the use of “2012” granted to the IOC.

Advantages of the 2006 Act
The 2006 Act gives a strong commercial benefit to the IOC which will now be able to demand higher sponsorship fees for the London Games as a result of the security that can now be offered to potential sponsors by virtue of the provisions of the 2006 Act. Those wishing to take commercial advantage of the London Games without a proper licence need to be very careful.

Further Information
Shelley Beaumont is a lawyer specialising in intellectual property with law firm Haliwells. She can be contacted at the firm’s Manchester office on 0161 835 3003.

September/October 2010
issue 61
available now