For the London Free Press – February 11, 2008

Read this on Canoe

In preparation for the 2010 Winter Olympics, Bill C-47, the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act came into force on Dec. 17.

The Act protects the Olympic brand. The Olympic brand is comprised of dozens of names, phrases, marks and logos related to the 2010 Winter Games. Examples include obvious examples like the word “Olympic,” the use of the official Olympic emblem, as well as less obvious examples such as Vancouver 2010, Sea to Sky Games and the Olympic rings.

The IOC and its marketing partners have placed VANOC under a legal obligation to protect against unauthorized use of the Olympic brand and ambush marketing in Canada.

Ambush marketing occurs when business uses false or unauthorized associations between its business, goods or services and the goodwill associated with the Olympics. Ambush marketing threatens the financial viability of the Olympic Games by impairing the ability of organizers to raise the necessary sponsorship and licensing funding. Essentially, organizations and corporate sponsors participating in the 2010 Vancouver Games marketing program must be confident they are investing in something not available for free.

VANOC’s brand and logo policy on its website states it will assess whether there has been an infringement of the Olympic brand through a six-part test which assesses whether the Olympic brand is:

- Used accurately without distortion or modification.

- Used in an overly promotional manner which contributed to the creation of an unauthorized business association.

- Used in a commercially neutral manner or whether it created an unauthorized business association between the Olympics and a commercial entity?

- Given undue prominence within the context of the overall initiative or storyline?

- Used visually to create an association between a business and the Olympic or Paralympic movement.

- Whether there are any other elements not contemplated in the proceeding factors that otherwise create an unauthorized association with the Olympic or Paralympic movement?

Each factor is rated between one and three and an aggregate score is generated. A score of more than indicates infringement and VANOC can take action to protect the mark, including the use of the courts.

The website also has examples of what uses would be considered acceptable or infringing.

Concerns with this legislation have been noted by critics. First, unlike normal trademarks, IOC and VANOC are not required to prove they have suffered harm under this legislation. Nor does it require the use to be confusing. This will make an injunction or an order for damages easier to obtain. It will be difficult for small businesses to challenge a corporate giant like the Olympic committee.

While the legislation provides an exemption for parody and media, it has been noted that filmmakers, musicians and artists are not exempt from compliance when they wish to reproduce their materials on a commercial scale.

It has also been noted the protection impedes free speech.

It appears corporate sponsorship, trademark law and free speech will be competing for gold at the podium.