The Olympics Act of 2006 bans the use of terms such as
2012, games, gold, silver and bronze in combination except by those
who are official sponsors of the Olympic Games and allows the
Games' authorities to control advertising around the venues used in
the Games.
These restrictions are too severe, according to a paper just
published by the CIM.
"If the 2006 Act has been designed to defeat ambush marketing,
it has been executed in a heavy-handed, blanket way that fails to
give allowance to the (by Olympic standards) minuscule efforts of
small and medium-sized companies to gain some benefit from the
presence of the Games," said the paper, The event that dare not
speak its name: Marketing and the Olympics.
"Even official suppliers to the event are not entitled to
associate their companies with the Games in terms of advertising,
promotions or even in formal discussions with other companies when
seeking other business," it said.
The law means that advertisers cannot use any two of the
following terms together: 'Games', 'Two thousand and twelve',
'2012' and 'Twenty twelve'. Neither can they use one of those terms
in conjunction with any of: 'Gold', 'Silver', 'Bronze', 'London',
'Medals', 'Sponsors', 'Summer'. Breaking the terms of the Act could
result in a £20,000 fine.
"By treating certain combinations of words as cause for
prosecution the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is throwing
the baby out with the bathwater," said the CIM. "Major corporate
sponsors do not need such draconian legislation from a body that
seems keener to protect large international companies than support
its own grass roots businesses and entrepreneurs."
The measures are designed to combat 'ambush marketing', the
practice of companies attempting to use a sporting or cultural even
to achieve exposure for their brand or products without actually
paying to sponsor the event.
The CIM and polling firm Ipsos MORI surveyed marketers earlier
this year and found that 42% of them expected to carry out some
Olympics-related marketing activity in the run up to the 2012
Games.
The CIM's research found, though, that most companies are
unaware of the restrictions placed on them by the Olympics Act. It
found that 40% of companies had no understanding of the Act and 46%
had a poor understanding, leaving just 14% of firms with a claim to
having a good understanding of the legislation.
"The enthusiasm generated by Britain’s Olympic glory may quickly
evaporate once businesses come to terms with the Olympics Act,"
said David Thorp, the director of research at the CIM in the
paper's introduction. "Those hoping to bask in London’s moment in
the sun may be surprised at how restrictive the provisions of the
Olympics Act are."
Thorp said, though, that there will be some opportunities for
firms to create associations with the Games, but they might have to
think creatively and start planning early.
"Those marketers who plan ahead and dedicate themselves to
exploring and exploiting the numerous Olympic opportunities still
available, will be well placed to make the most of this exceptional
event, and turn it into a British success both on and off the
field," he said.
The paper advises companies to tender for work associated with
the Games, and if they are associating themselves with the Games
through advertising, to do it generally and not specifically.
"Imaginative and non-specific associations with health, fitness
and athleticism will not infringe the Olympics Act," it said.
The legislation is similar to that used for the first time at
the Sydney games in 2000 and is designed to help Games organisers
to protect the investment put into the Games by official
sponsors.
A number of high-profile instances of hijacking took place
during the 1990s, including an incident at the 1996 Atlanta
Olympics when British sprinter Linford Christie wore contact lenses
containing the logo of Puma, which was not an official sponsor of
the Games.
The legislation created a new right, a London Olympics
Association Right (LOAR) and extended the Olympic Symbol etc
(Protection) Act of 1995. The Games also enjoy normal legal
protection from trade mark infringement and passing off.
The CIM said that the law will disproportionately punish smaller
firms. "Ambush marketing attempts are made by major companies, for
whom it’s sometimes worth the threat of fines, to get some valuable
promotion," it said. "Yet, as a result, it is the SMEs and regional
companies that will be the ones to suffer unnecessarily under the
Act."
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
