Getting around the London 2012 branding police

http://blog.jgc.org/2012/04/getting-around-london-2012-branding.html

by billpg • 14 years ago

227 129 14 years ago

blog.jgc.org

Charlie Brooker seems to be asking to be sued https://twitter.com/charltonbrooker

njs123453• 14 years ago

It seems as though there's provision for satirical use of a mark to be allowed in the UK under some circumstances, so he might be ok: http://www.dyoung.com/trademarknewsletter-nov07#anchorlink2

ktizo3• 14 years ago

I like his dramatisations of publicly available video, like footage of parliament, that he is legally not allowed to use over here as his programmes count as satire.

That's right, in the UK it is actually illegal to use footage of parliament for satirical purposes.

Luckily, there is little need to satirise parliament, as they usually do a fine job of making themselves look utterly ridiculous without any external help. Every time I see footage of it these days I feel like I'm watching the worlds most boring medieval reenactment society.

pbhjpbhj6• 14 years ago

>"satirical use of a mark" //

Of course there is provision for non-commercial uses of trademarks &c.. If this were about trademark law then London Olympics 2012 could be used by anyone as it's merely a description of an event - it's not a distinctive mark by any stretch of the imagination; people couldn't however use their "Lisa Simpson performs fellatio" logo for example.

The problem appears to be that the government passed a bill, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/12/schedule/4, to strictly limit free expression wrt the Olympics.

Presumably the IOC consider this sort of curtailing of rights to be part of what defines modern sporting events. TBH a request to do this should have had the response "we're sorry but the rights of the UK public aren't for sale to the highest bidder" ... obviously things swung the other way.

For example under the London Olympics 2006 Act Section 3 I can't mention "summer 2012" unless I'm a licensee of the new "London Olympic Association Right" lest a judge find me to be illegally associating commercial enterprise with the Olympics.

What a faff over a bit of sport.

goatforce5• 14 years ago

I'd bet five (5) of your English pence that he's working on some articles/shows about the inanity of the games and the machinery surrounding it.

Getting a C&D or similar would be a good starting point for that.

mjwalshe3• 14 years ago

Simon Hoggart (the main political sketch writer on the Guardian) has been even more scathing.

Tichy• 14 years ago

Fine, let's just erase the whole event from the internet, I don't think it would be a huge loss for mankind.

tseabrooks• 14 years ago

Is this really at all interesting? This is the same sort of thing that happens with the Super Bowl year after year.

viraptor• 14 years ago

Some of us don't know much about super bowl, because it's a single country single sport thing. 2012 Olympic games in London are more universal. I didn't know anything about the super bowl issue.

slantyyz3• 14 years ago

This is nothing new.

The IOC always swings a big copyright hammer in every host city, even if a business has existed for a long time.

If there is any business that even remotely has a word starting with "Olymp" (think McDonald's and their litigiousness with the Mc prefix, but worse) in its name, such as a Greek restaurant, they'd better expect to be told to change your name. Local governments play along with the IOC because of the large amounts of money at play.

While the Olympic games are a great thing, the IOC, however, is run just like any other business, and can be just as dirty/evil.

MichaelGG• 14 years ago

While the NFL's actions with the Super Bowl are silly, they don't apparently have a overly strong legal standing to bar people from even using those words[1]. After all, trademarks exist to avoid consumer confusion, not to bar all other entities from even mentioning the mark (although, it seems that lately trademarks are being abused and the law being twisted into expanding the purpose of trademarks).

In London, extra powers been granted via parliamentary act[2], and even private security contractors may be able to enter homes to enforce these rules[3]. This is a pretty large difference.

1: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/04205917638/hey-ad...

2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Olympic_Games_and_Paraly...

3: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/21/olympics2012-civil-...

daxelrod• 14 years ago

In the US, everyone has pretty much standardized on "the Big Game" as a euphemism to refer to the Super Bowl. This article proposed a euphemism for the London Olympics (although satirically). Seems like a good idea to me.

JohnnyFlash• 14 years ago

I can see the problem with people claiming to be or acting like sponsors of the event. If you pony up the money to sponsor the event you should see the benefit.

However, clamping down on someone saying. "London 2012 Parking".. what is wrong with that? Its fact. Person is providing parking for people attending the 2012 event..

archangel_one2• 14 years ago

That's exactly the same problem, isn't it? If someone were to pay to be the Official Provider of Carparks to the games, they don't want everyone else to be able to write something which makes it look like they are too. For a slightly more realistic example, lots of places are providing food to people attending the event, but McDonalds pays a lot of money so that they're the only ones that can advertise as "London 2012 Restaurant" or whatever.

read_wharf• 14 years ago

"Clive's Parking. 1/2 mile from the Olympic venue."

"Half Mile Parking."

Karunamon• 14 years ago

I don't see how you can possibly trademark a year, which is a factual statement.

helipad• 14 years ago

I worked a tech company with a decent lawyer who needed to cross-check all the marketing newsletters and blog entries we posted related to the Winter Olympics. By the end we were using such convoluted terms that it rendered the entire exercise pointless.

drcube• 14 years ago

I've wondered about this with the Superbowl, aka "The Big Game". I understand that refusing to let people mention your hugely popular event without paying is a quick way to make money. But does it help in the long term?

For events no one's ever heard of, obviously, it would be better to spread the word, rather than delete all unofficial mentions. It seems to me that eventually, the Superbowl will be better known as "the Big Game" or some other euphemism, and the NFL will be stuck wondering why they squandered their valuable trademark.

The Olympics, due to its historical nature, may be less susceptible. But how do you trademark a term that has been used since ~750 BC? I'm wondering what would happen if there were a movement to follow the rules religiously. Imagine if the only place you heard "Olympics" was in crappy advertisements? And every real human you talked to just said "The Quadrennial International Grab-Bag of Sports". Or maybe the "Quigbos".

Anyway, I'm rambling. I just really hope these language police get what's coming to them.

gaius3• 14 years ago

But how do you trademark a term that has been used since ~750 BC?

You pass an Act of Parliament to that effect. I'm not even kidding; that's what they've done.

_delirium• 14 years ago

True in the U.S. as well; the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 granted a special trademark on "Olympic" and "Olympiad". That trademark was challenged by the Sports Event Formerly Known As The Gay Olympics, but the Supreme Court upheld it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Arts_%26_Athletic...

rmc• 14 years ago

Remember the UK doesn't have a constitution and hence it's not clear what it can't do. One common theory is "Parliament can pass a law on anything that's not physically impossible". Kinda makes a change from "only regulat interstate commerce"

tnorthcutt• 14 years ago

According to Paul Levy, everyone calling the Superbowl the "Big Game" is stupid; they should just call it the Superbowl: http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2012/02/brand-name-weenies...

J3L2404• 14 years ago

Sounds more like Paul Harvey.

Spoom2• 14 years ago

If someone posts a prominent disclaimer that they are not an official sponsor, why should they be prevented from referring to an event by its actual name?

If I owned a bar, and I was showing the London 2012 games on the TVs, I would advertise that I was showing the London 2012 games on the TVs. Exactly what is wrong with that?

joshz2• 14 years ago

You'd still create an association between your ad and London 2012 in addition to using the term 'London 2012'.

Spoom2• 14 years ago

So then the question becomes this: Should trademark owners be able to quash any unauthorized "connections" to their product, even if it's made clear that the connection is not a sponsorship, only a mention? Frankly, that seems like an incredible overreach to me, and I believe one not supported by law.

jessriedel5• 14 years ago

I would think that there would be some sort of "fair use" for trademarks. My understanding is that the philosophy behind trademark law in the US is always based on whether or not a reasonable consumer would infer that the advertisement is officially associated with the trademark holder. But given that, I don't know why so many companies use the term "The Big Game" rather than "Superbowl"; maybe they like it better than having to explicitly include a disclaimed. And I also have no idea how the law works in the UK.

petercooper2• 14 years ago

There is, it's called nominative use (in the US, but similar must exist overseas). Otherwise no-one would ever be able to refer to a trademark without being open to a lawsuit. That's how books about technologies with trademarked names can exist, for instance.

zerostar073• 14 years ago

It's always been like that, the Olympus-named athletics committee has always been ridiculously aggressive about their branding (and no, writing the words-that-cannot-be-named in greek won't save you either). My favourite replacement term is "Summer Games 2012"

I wonder if they are preparing a Superinjunction to prohibit the tweeting of results.

Now, imagine if Christmas had similar sponsors.

noarchy2• 14 years ago

Personally, I'd love to see an attempt to prohibit tweeting of results. The Streisand Effect would be glorious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

pbhjpbhj6• 14 years ago

>'My favourite replacement term is "Summer Games 2012"'

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/12/schedule/4

See Section 3. That's a non-allowed term for anyone not paid up as part of the LOAR. Indeed it appears that "Summer 2012" is also not allowed.

zerostar073• 14 years ago

Whoa. I 'm running out of ideas, what do you think about "The Greek Athletics"

casca• 14 years ago

While they'll probably go a little too far, this is a good thing. The Olympics are an incredibly expensive event to put on that many people love and someone needs to pay for it. There are a limited number of people who can visit the games due to cost and seating restrictions, so TV advertising is required. If this kind of thing doesn't happen, the value and therefor the price of the sponsorship drops, leading to a worse Olympics for all.

It doesn't matter if you don't like sport or the IOC or the fact that London won the Olympics. This is the situation and it would be imprudent to act any other way.

ontIgnoreRealit• 14 years ago

Spending more money on an event does not necessarily make it better.

Plenty of other great sporting events are held without these kind of ridiculous measures.

waterlesscloud• 14 years ago

Fine, they can claim Olympics, Olympic Games, etc. Maybe even Summer Games.

But they simply have no claim to the year or the city name. It's not a little too far, it's far too far.

zerostar073• 14 years ago

While I don't disagree with protecting their private IP, don't forget that the Olympics are funded mainly by taxpayer's money in the host country, and the games are generally considered an issue of national pride for competing countries. It's not like the IOC is ethically entitled to complete ownership of the very ancient games, and thus able to treat the whole concept and event as its exclusive private property; unless they agree to cover the full cost.

drewcrawford2• 14 years ago

> The Olympics are an incredibly expensive event to put on that many people love and someone needs to pay for it.

I am continually fascinated by the idea, often proposed in other contexts than this one, that we must spend money as an axiom and then figure out how to fund it as a corollary.

I don't really disagree with your dichotomy: we can either have expensive events or sane intellectual property law, but not both. I'm merely wondering at which meeting we picked one over the other, and what happened to my invitation :-)

njs123453• 14 years ago

I do disagree with the dichotomy; I doubt firms would stop paying to be official sponsors just because others were allowed to use the terms sensibly (i.e. not implying that they were affliated with the Games).

Also, we already have plenty of trademark protections. I don't see why they're not sufficient for the Olympics, given that they seem to work fine for everything else.

gaius3• 14 years ago

someone needs to pay for it

That someone is the taxpayer to the tune of GBP 10Bn - 5x the original budget.

njs123453• 14 years ago

For comparison: total sponsorship revenues are £700m http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/05032012/58/london-2012-london...

jellicle• 14 years ago

You've got a pretty big leap there between "TV advertising is required" and "we need to ban everyone from saying the words London 2012 and cover up logos across the city".

I'm pretty sure that selling TV advertising during sporting events is possible even without new draconian IP laws being passed.

peteretep• 14 years ago

Also: every idiot marketer in the company would be trying to pull off some annoying stunt to get marketing value from it.

slantyyz3• 14 years ago

Worth noting: Whereas the host city might make some money or lose a lot of money on hosting an Olympic Games, the IOC always makes a lot of money from each Games.

Joakal2• 14 years ago

I believe a lot of British people have the right to complain because their taxpayers dollars are going towards this. Far more than the sponsorship agreement potential that demanded restriction of speech.

Essentially it's a net-negative economic policy. I'm not sure why it's beneficial for any country to host it when history has shown that it had caused violation of liberties, losses, environmental issues, no tourism increase, etc.

bluedanieru3• 14 years ago

The little shit who lands the deal gets to say "I brought the Olympics to London". That's why. Whether that's actually a good thing is not only immaterial, it's never even given a moment's thought.

Britain been doing a good job shitting on its liberties already, though. I'm not sure the Olympic Games are going to make such a big difference. So, I suppose that's good?

bluedanieru3• 14 years ago

It's expensive because of the all the bullshit that comes along with it. Bringing in athletes from around the world and having them compete, while expensive, could be paid for with ticket sales and perhaps a sensible amount of advertisements.

The trouble is when you force the host to spend hundreds of millions on infrastructure each time, when more than adequate facilities are already available. It's expensive because they make it so, not because it has to be.

For my part I won't be watching the Olympics and I'll go out of my way to avoid its sponsors for the duration of the Games and for some time afterward.

excuse-me7• 14 years ago

Yes but if it only attracted people that were actually interested in the sport it could be held on a school playing fields on a wednesday afternoon

pbhjpbhj6• 14 years ago

>The trouble is when you force the host to spend hundreds of millions on infrastructure each time //

Unfortunately it's the politicians, that want to be part of something big, spending other people's money, that choose to spend hundreds of millions. If all the countries simply said to the IOC "we're not going to spend silly money, haven't you heard there's a recession on" then it could all be done with existing infrastructure.

Meanwhile the UK could have bought everyone a Raspberry pi, a pushbike, trainers and a tracksuit and still had change to offer a free year of swimming with the £160-200 per person budget (£10bn to £12bn/ 60 million people).

drewcrawford2• 14 years ago

For a more technical discussion of the intricacies of this topic as it relates to British Law, you may find this article interesting:

http://www.bl.uk/sportandsociety/exploresocsci/businessecono...

soult• 14 years ago

My hometown recently hosted the first Youth Olympic Winter games. Despite the fact that you probably never heard of them, they are just as official as the real Olympic games.

The organizers demanded that every non-sponsor logo in the venues be removed. Not just advertising, they wanted everything gone. Some poor schmucks had to go around and cover every logo with a piece of tape. On clocks, furniture, faucets and even inside the bidets and toilet bowls.

Meanwhile they plastered ads for Coca Cola and Samsung all over our city.

Olympic spirit my ass.

jerf• 14 years ago

"Olympic spirit my ass."

Careful where you say that... they might brand that, too.

mikedmiked• 14 years ago

"Summer of sport spirit" actually has a nice ring to it.

I wonder about the allowance of typos? Could I sell merchandise with "Olympix" or "London 2k12"?

excuse-me7• 14 years ago

The same city where the olympics used a line from the national anthem as it's motto and tried to claim that it had a copyright on it?

patrickk2• 14 years ago

Reminds me of the 2010 World Cup "ambush-marketing" fiasco involving 36 ladies who were detained by South African police for "advertising" a non-FIFA sanctioned beer at the world cup, by daring to wear their countries colour at a game.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/world...

Wearing (just) your underwear at a game = OK.

Wearing clothing with a non-sanctioned beer label = not ok.

Insane.

fennecfoxen• 14 years ago

You know, for all that I hear people complain about "corporations buying our government", I sure don't hear a lot of the same people complaining in this case where they have actually explicitly bought off the government.

All for the glory of Visa, Proctor and Gamble, McDonalds, Acer, Samsung, Panasonic, General Electric, and Dow Chemical.

taligent7• 14 years ago

Only thing insane is your misrepresentation of the facts.

Wearing (just) your underwear at a game = OK.

Being PAID by a competitor to wear clothing and attend the game that they weren't previous going to attend = NOT OK.

taligent7• 14 years ago

I've never understand the hatred towards sponsors who partly pay for the games.

Would you rather have taxpayers pay even more for the Olympics ? Or how about in the case of the Youth Olympics not having it at all.

gaius3• 14 years ago

What they get for the relatively trivial amount they pay is massively disproportionate to the benefit the taxpayer sees.

hef198982• 14 years ago

During the kicking a ball around a green field with a lot of people watching event during a hot season in germany, they almost shut down the ball kickers team busses of the hosting nation down by said logo issue.

Since Mercedes (the producer of the team busses) was not a official sponsor (that was Hyundai, ehich didn't produce any busses afaik) they had to remove the mercedes logo. Tough luck was, they had radar sensors in the logo, so covering it would hve shut down the electronic (at least according to the press reports).

Whats really rediculous is, that even when a official sponsor can't provide a certain product or service, the other logo has to be removed. Even if you are official supplier to a participating team but not an official sponsor you can't show your logo.

I'm wondering when we have the first non-state entities being recognized as souvereign states... Hell, then you could even tax your own employees! :-)

hef198982• 14 years ago

Does this mean I cannot advertise my planed trip to London in Summer 2012 as my London 2012 summer trip?

I don't even like sport! It is after the games! Or before! So my Winter 2014 Sochi trip blog falls flatt too?!?!?!!

jaylevitt• 14 years ago

I bet a provocative non-sponsor could mount a successful satirical ad campaign, especially given the national sense of humor:

"A lot of folks will be visiting to Lon-- (cough) to England this summer. Our proud city is hosting the... you know... the thing.

When you're on vacation, why not stay with someone you know? If you're coming to the you-know-what here in you-know-where, you know us. Hotel Whatever: We don't play games here."

taejo2• 14 years ago

The airline Kulula.com did this when there was that big thing where they kicked a ball around in the year between 2009 and 2011 in the country that's towards Antarctica from Namibia.

http://www.worldcupblog.org/world-cup-2010/kulula-vs-fifa-ro...

The international federation of kicking balls around, well, they kicked some balls around.

reinhardt2• 14 years ago

Welcome to The City That Should Not Be Named for The Event That Should Not Be Named.

dexen• 14 years ago

Imagine for a moment a city without municipial transportation, without running water, electricity, phone service, cars[0], etc. Without your favorite restaurant chain. Heck, without those soap dispensers OP mentions. Suddenly it's no longer such a great place for hosting Games at.

Given that those items, venues, services etc. add substantially to the value of the Games and build London's value over long time, I find it strange only the direct, one-time sponsors get to display their brands.

----

[0] will they tape-over brand logos on citizens' cars just as well?

ticks• 14 years ago

Given how short-term these sorts of events are and how unlikely it is to happen there again (in a lifetime), I suggest just letting them get on with the crazy thing and concentrate on more constructive subjects. One of those topics to keep the media busy.

pbhjpbhj6• 14 years ago

I'd love to ignore it but the Gov unilaterally deciding to spend £10 billion of public money entertaining rich people for a week or two in the midst of a recession when there's rampant unemployment, an ever widening poverty gap and cuts on all but essential public services ... sorry can't ignore that.

excuse-me7• 14 years ago

At previous "international steroid cases running about" events they have ejected people who had T-shirts with a non-sponsor logo, and people who drinking cans of the wrong sugary caffeinated drink

bluedanieru3• 14 years ago

So can we all just stop talking about the Olympics altogether then? Normally I'd have a problem with restrictions on speech like this, but if it means nobody can ever mention the fucking Games ever again, I'm for it. Good riddance.

GoodIntentions• 14 years ago

"the fucking Games"

That has a great ring to it. Perhaps everyone wishing to refer to the games without being sued should adopt it.

reinhardt2• 14 years ago

Or even more fitting to the location, "the bloody Games"

ilitirit• 14 years ago

Reminds me of Kulula Airlines vs FIFA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTmlderyH0A

crjn• 14 years ago

Have Bumblebee from Transformers say the message for you. He could dig into radio archives, historical records,youtube videos, get clippings on the fly and construct the message in his style. I bet no-one can object that

_b8r0• 14 years ago

So over at http://www.44con.com/ we have a problem in that 44Con is in London during 2012. We have no sport as far as I'm aware (unless shooting speakers with high volume nerf weaponry counts) but with the changes in the law we have to be really careful about how we promote 44Con, and we were here first!

dabeeeenster• 14 years ago

It gets worse:

"But civil rights campaigners are worried about several clauses in the London Olympic Games and Games Act 2006. Section 19(4) could cover protest placards, they said, as it read: "The regulations may apply in respect of advertising of any kind including in particular – (a) advertising of a non-commercial nature, and (b) announcements or notices of any kind."

Section 22 allows a "constable or enforcement officer" to "enter land or premises" where they believe such an advert is being shown or produced. It allows for materials to be destroyed, and for the use of "reasonable force". The power to force entry requires a court warrant. Causing still further concern is a section granting the powers to an enforcement officer appointed by Olympic Delivery Authority.

Anita Coles, policy officer for Liberty, said: "This goes much further than protecting the Olympic logo for commercial use. Regulations could ban signs urging boycotts of sponsors with sweat shops. Then private contractors designated by the Olympic authority could enter homes and other premises in the vicinity, seizing or destroying private property."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/21/olympics2012-civil-...

excuse-me7• 14 years ago

Don't worry you will still be allowed to lawfully protest about, eg China in Tibet - you will just have to do it from the official Olympic protest site.

I believe this is somewhere in the Orkneys and shows the government's commitment to spreading the Olympics to the regions.

taligent7• 14 years ago

Only with the permission of the courts.

How is this ANY different to the status quo ?

waivej• 14 years ago

OK, I won't mention the big London event to anyone. If people are talking about it, I'll mention that I have no interest and walk away.

petercooper2• 14 years ago

When we inevitably balls it up, it'll be called the "Woe-lympics" or something similarly stupid by the press anyway, as is the way of the British press ;-) We might as well start from that.

sdfjkl• 14 years ago

I've been to one of the LOCOG[1] briefings for (potential) suppliers a few years ago. The rules and regulations were absolutely ridiculous. One of the most memorable images shown to us was that of a shop window featuring (amongst a host of other items) several disconnected rings. The presenter then proudly announced that this sort of thing was not permitted unless you were one of the official sponsors and that the shop in question had been punished for their transgressions.

Things got worse from there. Strictly no branding of any non-sponsors allowed anywhere, which meant no attribution of any kind (so you couldn't use the popular Silk icons on your website for example), not even in the URL (can't end in .aspx because that reflects a certain brand). Of course you also can't use or link to external websites (such as YouTube) so you'd effectively have to build your own video sharing service if you wanted to build something where people shared and uploaded video clips.

If you look over the official website with this in mind, you can see the hoops (no pun intended) the builders had to jump through everywhere. For example, the map (http://www.london2012.com/map.php) is entirely custom built and has no name in the copyright notice (it's only show when clicked). Or the aforementioned build-your-own video sharing service (http://www.london2012.com/videos/). Frankly I'm surprised there's a Server header in the HTTP response.

[1] London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, see http://www.london2012.com/about-us/the-people-delivering-the...

Getting around the London 2012 branding police

Related Stories