Skip to main content

International sport and the need to protect your intellectual property

International sport and the need to protect your intellectual property

International sport and the need to protect your intellectual property
International sport is a great way for countries and brands to come together and collaborate and reach new-found markets; however, it also raises the chances of intellectual property matters being brought to light as your trademarks and designs now reach larger audiences. It is essential to make sure that before participating in advertising across international sporting matches, you are also ensuring that your intellectual property is as secure as possible.
Under section 120(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth):
"A person infringes a registered trademark if the person uses as a trademark a sign that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trademark about goods or services in respect of which the trademark is registered."
Section 17 states:
A trademark is a sign intended to distinguish goods or services dealt with or provided in the course of trade by a person from goods or services sold with or provided by any other person.
On the one hand, you could argue that when a trademark is used for advertising a business at a major sporting venue to over 82,000 spectators, it will constitute the use of that trademark. On the other hand, it could also be argued that the Indian business isn't trading in Australia and that the 'use' in Australia is merely incidental to the dominant use, being advertising to the millions of Indian public viewing the match via the television broadcast into India. You could also argue that there was no 'use' at all, given that the product isn't targeted at the Australian public.
This type of cross-country advertising is not a new phenomenon and certainly not in international sports arenas. I remember watching Ashes test matches from England on TV years ago, with the Australian Ford Falcon prominently advertised at the grounds. The Falcon was not offered for sale in the UK, and the advertising was only aimed at Australian viewers.
The Coca-Cola Corporation is one international brand that has relied on international sporting events for years as a vehicle for its advertising. At the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa, Coca-Cola workers were dressed in red and white outfits, distributing products to fans in the stands. This type of marketing is often referred to as ambush marketing. It is a way for companies to associate their brands with a major sporting event without paying the often high costs of being an official sponsor. ambush marketing can take
many forms, such as product placement, point-of-sale promotions, street teams, internet marketing and event-specific packaging.
In the past, Coca-Cola has been accused of ambush marketing, most notably at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, when the company distributed miniature American flags to spectators to associate its brand with patriotism and national pride.
With the increased globalisation of sports and the ever-growing popularity of international sporting events,
companies are increasingly looking for ways to maximise their exposure and increase their market share. As a result, we will likely see more examples of ambush marketing in the future.
For brand owners, it is essential to be aware of the risks of ambush marketing and to take steps to protect your brand. If you are planning to use ambush marketing to promote your brand at a major sporting event, you should seek legal advice to ensure that your activities do not infringe on other companies' intellectual property.
Rights, mainly trade mark rights.


Popular posts from this blog

Misappropriation of likeness, it's in the game

Misappropriation of likeness, it's in the game With the recent announcement that EA will be venturing back into the world of college sports for one of their upcoming games. It is essential to look at the reasons for its (over a decade-long) hiatus from making college sports games. Several high-profile cases took down a very profitable area of sports gaming almost ten years ago, over a simple but crucial element to the games, the players.  Privacy and personality laws in the United States is an emerging area of law founded on the basis that is based in tort law. It deals with the ideas that a person has rights: 1. To be left alone; 2. To not have public disclosure of private facts; 3. To not be depicted in a false light; and 4. To not have your name and likeness misappropriated.  On these critical tenets, personality laws have become increasingly more prevalent as, due to advances in technologies, it is becoming easier for one's likeness to be copied and distributed.  Th

NEVER Read the Comments!

The Federal Court this week delivered their judgement on  Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Service Seeking Pty Ltd  [2020] FCA 1040 going all out by handing out whopping fines, legal costs orders and ordering Service Seeking Pty Ltd to establish a, undoubtedly expensive, compliance system to be monitored by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).  What did they do that was so bad?  According to the Federal Court of Australia, they created a system in which businesses could write their own customer reviews.  With a rating system less defined than what constitutes a 5-star rating in an Uber trip, businesses could write a review, assign a star rating and send it off to their customer for approval. If the customer didn’t respond or even open the email containing the review, then the review was automatically published online after a set period. By estimates of the Court, approximately 80% of the reviews published on the website for the period that this sch

You can take the bread company out of Hawaii, but you can't take Hawaii out of the bread company.

You can take the bread company out of Hawaii, but you can't take Hawaii out of the bread company. What do you do when your favourite company that makes your favourite type of bread makes it bread outside of your favourite state? You take them to court, or at least that is what one man has done.  A man in New York has filed a class action against bread maker, King's Hawaiian over the sweet rolls alleging that the company misled him into believing that the rolls are actually made in Hawaii. Robert Galinsky is pursuing a class-action lawsuit against the company claiming unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. King's Hawaiian packaging Galinsky claims that Hawaiian Rolls by itself "does not denote a roll made in Hawaii any more than a 'Moon Pie' can claim to have been baked on the moon." But the company using the original location of its factory, 'Hilo, Hawaii' in its packaging is misleading to customers.  If Galinsky can convince th