Mega-Event Rights Protection and Intellectual Property Laws

Chapter
Part of the ASSER International Sports Law Series book series (ASSER)

Abstract

This is the first of three chapters which will each focus on a specific aspect of the impact of special legal protection of commercial rights to events. This chapter will critically examine the ways in which such special laws not only supplement but often significantly alter the fundamental precepts, characteristics and working of intellectual property laws. IP rights are, of course, important in the context of event sponsorships and also of ambush marketing. The chapter will examine, however, the recent trend of phenomenal expansion of IP laws and of IP rights and the protection which they provide to event organisers and their commercial partners by means of sui generis event legislation, from a critical perspective. The conclusion is that this expansion is illegitimate and unjustifiable in this context, and provides a major cause for concern regarding the legitimacy of special event protection laws.

Keywords

Intellectual Property Event Organiser Consumer Confusion Paralympic Game Trademark Protection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

All internet-based sources referred to, were last visited in or before December 2011.

  1. Baird SR (1993) Moral Intervention in the Trademark Arena: Banning the Registration of Scandalous and Immoral Trademarks. Trademark Rep 83:661Google Scholar
  2. Becker LC (1993) Deserving to own intellectual property. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 68:609Google Scholar
  3. Beebe B (2005) Search and persuasion in trademark law. Mich Law Rev 103:2020Google Scholar
  4. Blackshaw I (2010) Protecting major sporting events with particular reference to the 2012 London Olympic Games. Entertain Sports Law J 7(2). http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/eslj/issues/volume7/number2/blackshaw/blackshaw.pdf
  5. Bollier D (2005) Brand name bullies: the quest to own and control culture. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyle J (2008) The public domain: enclosing the commons of the mind. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  7. Brookman AL (2003) Trademark law: protection, enforcement and licensing. Aspen Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown RS (1948) Advertising and the public interest: legal protection of trade symbols. Yale Law J 57:1165Google Scholar
  9. Carrier MA (2004) Cabining intellectual property through a property paradigm. Duke Law J 54:1Google Scholar
  10. Cooper Dreyfuss R (1996) We are symbols and inhabit symbols, so should we be paying rent? Deconstructing the Lanham Act and rights of publicity. Columbia VLA J Law Arts 20:123Google Scholar
  11. Corbett S, Van Roy Y (2010) Events management in New Zealand: one law to rule them all? J Bus Law 4:338–362Google Scholar
  12. Curthoys J, Kendall CN (2001) Ambush marketing and the Sydney 2000 games (indicia and images) protection act: a retrospective. Murdoch Univ Electron J Law 8(2)Google Scholar
  13. Das PK (2000) Offensive protection: the potential application of intellectual property laws to scripted sports plays. Indiana Law J 75:1073Google Scholar
  14. de Oliveira Ascencao J (1990) The right over an entertainment or event. Copyr Bull 24(2):3–13Google Scholar
  15. Elhauge E, Geradin D (2007) Global competition and economics. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellis D, Scassa T, Seguin B (2011) Framing ambush marketing as a legal issue: an Olympic perspective. Sport Manag Rev 14(3):297–308Google Scholar
  17. Ewelukwa UU (2006) Comparative trademark law: fair use defense in the United States and Europe—the changing face of trademark law. Widener Law Rev 13:97Google Scholar
  18. Farley CH (2006) Why we are confused about the trademark dilution law. Fordham IP Media Ent LJ 16:1175Google Scholar
  19. Fezer K-H (2003) Die Eventmarke. Festschrift für Winfried Tilmann 321. (as referred to in Lundgren FD 2010)Google Scholar
  20. Fezer K-H (2007) Kennzeichenschutz des Sponsoring—Der Weg nach WM 2006, Zur Eintragungsfähigkeit von Veralstaltungsdienstleistungsmarken und Veranstaltungswarenmarken. Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte 5/2007, 193. (as referred to in Lundgren FD 2010)Google Scholar
  21. Fisher WW (1988) Reconstructing the fair use doctrine. Harvard Law Rev 101:1659Google Scholar
  22. Fisher WW (2001) Theories of intellectual property law. In: Munzer S (ed) New essays in the legal and political theory of property. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Franklyn DJ (2001) Owning words in cyberspace: the accidental trademark regime. Wis Law Rev 5:1251Google Scholar
  24. Frontier Economics Pty Ltd, Melbourne (2007) Ambush marketing legislation review, a report prepared for IP Australia and the Australian government’s department of communications. Information technology and the arts (October 2007)Google Scholar
  25. Gardiner et al (2006) Sports Law, 3rd edn. Cavendish Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Gordon WJ (1993) A property right in self-expression: equality and individualism in the natural law of intellectual property. Yale Law J 102:1533Google Scholar
  27. Grady J, McKelvey S, Bernthal MJ (2012) From Beijing 2008 to London 2012: examining event-specific Olympic legislation vis à vis the rights and interests of stakeholders. J Spons 3(2):144–156Google Scholar
  28. Haman M, Marriott D (2010) The 2010 World Cup—practical lessons in brand protection. World Trademark Rev 72–77Google Scholar
  29. Heymann LA (2011) Naming, identity and trademark law. Indiana Law J 86:381Google Scholar
  30. Johnson P (2007) Ambush marketing: a practical guide to protecting the brand of a sporting event. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson P (2008) Look out! it’s an ambush. Int Sports Law Rev 2/3:24–29Google Scholar
  32. Kelbrick R (2008) The W***D C*P of 2*1*: FIFA’s intellectual property rights in South Africa. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 3(5):327Google Scholar
  33. Kobel P (2007) International report on question B: ambush marketing too smart to be good? Should certain ambush marketing practises be declared illegal and if yes, which ones and under what conditions? International report to the international league of competition law. Catania Congress 2007Google Scholar
  34. Kunstadt RM, Kieff FS, Kramer RG (1996) Are sports moves next in IP law? Natl Law J c1Google Scholar
  35. Kur A (2008) Strategic branding: Does trademark law provide for sufficient self help and self healing forces? In: Govaere I, Ulrich H (eds) Intellectual property, market power and the public interest P.I.E. Peter Lang, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  36. Landes W, Posner R (1987) Trademark law: an economic perspective. J Law Econ 30:265Google Scholar
  37. Lemley MA (1999) The modern Lanham Act and the death of common sense. Yale Law J 108:1687Google Scholar
  38. Lemley MA, McKenna M (2010) Irrelevant confusion. Stanf Law Rev 62(2):444–446Google Scholar
  39. Lessig L (2004) Free culture: the nature and future of creativity. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewis A, Taylor J (2007) Sport: law and practice. Tottel Publishing, Haywards HeathGoogle Scholar
  41. Longdin L (2009) Public law solutions to private law problems: major event regulation subverts IP’s internal balance. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 4(10):726–742Google Scholar
  42. Luepke MHH (2008) Taking unfair advantage or diluting a famous mark—A 20/20 perspective on the blurred differences between US and EU dilution law. Trademark Report 98(3):789Google Scholar
  43. Lundgren FD (2010) Event marks: a necessary form of protection against ambush marketing? Thesis submitted to the Munich Intellectual Property Law Centre, 13 September 2010. http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/resource/documents/QPLUS/network/universities/felipe_danneman_lundgren_miplc.pdf
  44. Marcus JT (2010) Ambush marketing: an analysis of its threat to sports rights holders and the efficacy of past, present and proposed anti-infringement programmes. Sport Law J 18(1):25Google Scholar
  45. McKelvey SM (2006) Coca-Cola vs. PepsiCo: a “super” battleground for the Cola wars? Sports Mark Q 15(2):114–123Google Scholar
  46. Merges RP, Menell PS, Lemley MA (2003) Intellectual property in the new technological age, 3rd edn. Aspen Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Mouritz A (2008) Challenging the legal enforceability of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games’ anti-ambush marketing provisions. Sport Law J Issue 1(16):10–19Google Scholar
  48. Ng CW (2008) The irrational lightness of trade marks. In: Bently L, Davis J, Ginsburg JC (eds) Trade marks and brands: an interdisciplinary critique. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Port KL (2008) Trademark extortion: the end of trademark law. Wash Lee Law Rev 65:585Google Scholar
  50. Rayle R (2000) The trend towards enhancing trademark owners’ rights—a comparative study of US and German trademark law. J Intellect Prop Law 7:227Google Scholar
  51. Reichmann JH, Franklin JA (1999) Privately legislated intellectual property rights: reconciling freedom of contract with public good uses of information. Univ Pa Law Rev 147:875Google Scholar
  52. Ross TP (2000) Intellectual property law: damages and remedies. Law Journal Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Scaria AG (2008) Ambush marketing: game within a game. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  54. Schatte H (2009) Strategic branding—the difficulty of the term and trade mark ‘Fussball WM 2006’. GRIN Verlag, MunichGoogle Scholar
  55. Schwab F (2006) FIFA’s trademark tactics. World Trademark Rev 3:6Google Scholar
  56. Seguin B, O’Reilly NJ (2008) The Olympic brand, ambush marketing and clutter. Int J Sport Manag Mark 4(1):62Google Scholar
  57. Séguin B, Ellis D, Scassa T, Parent M (2008) Who’s ambushing whom? An examination of anti-ambush marketing legislation in Canada: the case of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. In: Proceedings of the 16th European association for sport management conference, 10–13th September 2008, Heidelberg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  58. Siegel P (1994) On the owning of words: reflections on San Francisco Arts and Athletics vs. United States Olympic Committee. In: Ringer RJ (ed) Queer words, queer images. New York University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Spinello RA, Bottis M (2009) A defense of intellectual property rights. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  60. Stim R (2010) Patent, copyright and trademark. Nolo Publishers, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  61. Stoll-DeBell K, Dempsey N, Dempsey B (2009) Injunctive relief: temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. American Bar Association, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  62. Storey S (2010) Pilfering, piracy and prevention: developments in combating ambush marketing. Sport Law J 18(1)40–54Google Scholar
  63. Sumpter P (2006) Intellectual property law: principles in practice. CCH Ltd, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  64. Tan D (2008) Beyond trademark law: what the right of publicity can learn from cultural studies. Cardozo Arts Entertain Law J 25(3):913Google Scholar
  65. Tawfik M (2008) When intellectual property rights converge: tracing the contours and mapping the fault lines ‘case by case’ and ‘law by law’. In: Gendreau Y (ed) An emerging intellectual property paradigm: perspectives from Canada. Edward Elgar Publishing, London, p 267Google Scholar
  66. Townley S, Harrington D, Couchman N (1998) The legal and practical prevention of ambush marketing in sports. Psychol Mark 15(4):333–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vaidhyanathan S (2003) Copyrights and copywrongs: the rise of intellectual property and how it threatens creativity. New York University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Volokh E (2003) Freedom of speech and intellectual property: some thoughts after Eldred, 44 Liquormart, and Bartnicki’. Houst Law Rev 40(3):697Google Scholar
  69. Waldron J (1979) Enough and as good left for others. Philos Q 29:319Google Scholar
  70. Wilf S (1999) Who authors trademarks? Cardozo Arts Entertain Law J 17:1Google Scholar
  71. Williams TM (2009) Winter v. NRDC: A Stricter Standard for Irreparable Harm in Trademark Cases? 91J Pat Trademark Off Soc’y 571Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law, Howard College CampusUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalDurbanSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations