Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government Your Rights Online Politics

Canadian Gov't Grants Olympics Ownership of Winter 145

Posted by Zonk from the i-owned-winter-once-but-gave-it-away-for-magic-beans dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports that the Canadian government has introduced new legislation that grants Vancouver Olympic organizers broad powers to police the use of any commercial use of the words associated with the Olympics. These incredibly include 'winter, Vancouver, and games.' As Geist notes, the government 'has no time to deal with spam, spyware, privacy, or net neutrality, but commits to legislation on behalf of the organizers of a sporting event?'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Gov't Grants Olympics Ownership of Winter More

Canadian Gov't Grants Olympics Ownership of Winter

Comments Filter:

  • I, can, do, this, too! (Score:4, Funny)

    by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Saturday March 03, 2007 @04:28AM (#18216042) Journal
    Don't, you, wish, we, could, afford, to, buy, our, own, legislators? Life, would, be, so, much, easier, if, all, your, words, are, belong, to, me!
    • Join us in Vancouver as the Winter Olymmpics take posession of the English language and rule it with an iron fist.

      Just goes to show you, Canadian politicians are as corrupt as American politicians. They just have way less power.

    • Dear God People! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Some MP introduced a new bill. Any MP can introduce any bill he or she wants. That doesn't make it law.

      And even if it was law, it does serve a valid purpose - to crack down on "ambush" marketing, where companies try to underhandedly suggest they are associated with the olympics when they are not.

      Save all the extremist knee-jerk reactions for after 1) the bill is made into law and 2) it is used to sue some poor sob who uses the word 'winter' on a lost dog poster.

      • Re:Dear God People! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * on Saturday March 03, 2007 @08:06AM (#18216662) Journal
        How about the "poor sob" who owns a clothing store and gets a C&D letter after he puts out an advert for his "Winter Sale"?

        How about using public outrage to smack down any silly legislator who proposes this kind of stuff so maybe he gets a clue that this isn't what the citizens want?

        Remember, a "knee-jerk reaction" can be used to kick someone in the ass.

        • Repeat of 1988 (Score:5, Interesting)

          by lightning detector ( 913425 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @11:13AM (#18217634)
          As a Canadian, I remember we went through this sort of thing the last time the Olympic Winter Games were held in Canada, in Calgary, in the year 1988.

          There was a whack-a-mole attack on anything "infringing". God forbid you should use the word "Olympic". If an eatery in Toronto's Greek immigrant district was called "Olympic Restaurant", demands would be made to change the name.

          This campaign reached its peak (IIRC) when demands were made that Olympic Airways, the national airline of Greece, stop flying to Canada under that name. The issue got some embarrassing press coverage. As a result, "Olympic Airways" was allowed to continue, on condition that it provide some free trips to the organization running the games.

          It seems to me that the Olympic Games, like other businesses, is entitled to reasonable copyright and trademark protection. However, I am uneasy about special laws and draconian enforcement for the purpose.

          • This campaign reached its peak (IIRC) when demands were made that Olympic Airways, the national airline of Greece, stop flying to Canada under that name. The issue got some embarrassing press coverage. As a result, "Olympic Airways" was allowed to continue, on condition that it provide some free trips to the organization running the games.

            And that, in a nutshell, sums up the disgusting, corrupt, drug-enhanced, tax-wasting, nationalistic crapfest known as the Olympics.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dryeo ( 100693 )
            Not sure which Olympics, but it seems to me they got very uptight about the Olympic mountains and Olympia city http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/ [olympia.wa.us] in Washington State. And since these places are so close to Vancouver I wouldn't be surprised to see it again.

          • Repeat of 1982 (Score:4, Interesting)

            by tverbeek ( 457094 ) * on Saturday March 03, 2007 @03:37PM (#18219634) Homepage
            Back in the 1982 there was a new quadrennial international competition for gay and lesbian athletes called the "Gay Olympics". The International and U.S. Olympic Commmitees people stomped on this organization (while condoning the Special Olympics, the Police Olympics, and even the Nebraska Rat Olympics), forcing them to change the name of their event to the "Gay Games". Under this legislation, I guess they'd be banned from using even that name... would the "Gay Things" be OK?
          • There's an exemption for trademarks already in use before today -- see 3.(4)(b).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jthill ( 303417 )

        If the people writing these laws could be bothered to specify when these laws could be applied, there wouldn't be an uproar.

        Arguing that a law serves a valid purpose misses the point entirely. People objecting to laws rarely object to the good parts. The CDA served a good purpose. The DMCA serves a good purpose. Captain Copyright served a good purpose. With friends like that, good purposes don't need enemies.

    • Words such as 'words,' 'such,' 'as,' and 'and' to enter public domain shortly.

      I mean, really, I thought it was OK for people to do ANYTHING in advertising. Why can't you piggy-back on the success of a giant, if you can deceive small children in toy advertisements? Even if it wasn't such a common word as 'Winter.'

      It just struck me, though. What are people supposed to say? 'This snowy season?'
    • The stupidity in vancouver this winter is of olympic proportions!

      Sorry guys, this madness has GOT to stop.

      In reality:

      The Olympics is a FOR-PROFIT venture. The officials running this rake millions upon millions into their pocketbooks

      The term "olympic" dates back to the greeks. It's a common term and should not have been able to be trademarked by ANYONE, not even for a sporting event since those events originated in ancient times as well

      If I want to open a fast food restaurant with a greek theme and call a bu
  • So much for that Winter Water Polo league I was going to start. Oh, wait, I'm not in Canada. Oh, wait, I'm in the US, we'll have stricter laws next week.
    • No friggen kidding. Here's to hoping that the enforcers of this law are at least marginally sane individuals.
      'Cause the people that wrote them sure as hell weren't.
      -nB

  • The Devil's Deal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dj245 ( 732906 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @04:34AM (#18216060) Homepage
    This is likely part of agreements made in secret host city dealings with the Olympic committees. It seems to happen in all other host cities. Next up is the restriction of references to non-sponsored products and services. Sure, your rights have been stricken... but at least you can enjoy a nice cold Coca Cola while you watch the sporting events on the CBC.

    • Re:The Devil's Deal (Score:5, Informative)

      by legirons ( 809082 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @07:47AM (#18216590)
      "This is likely part of agreements made in secret host city dealings with the Olympic committees. It seems to happen in all other host cities"

      Or in whole countries. Here's the UK version, from 1995:

      http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_1995003 2_en_2.htm#mdiv2 [opsi.gov.uk]

      More recently when London decided to host an olympics, they also felt that this piece of legislation was necessary:

      http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/20060012.htm [opsi.gov.uk]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dryeo ( 100693 )
      They were talking on the radio that only GMC limos will be able to show up at Whistler since GMC is a sponser.
    • And I for one will be looking for flash mobs to join to protest carrying billboards of competing brands, signage with olympic logos pointing out the ridiculousness of the situation etc. Let them try to arrest us, it would make great press for them.

  • It's a good thing that the Canadian govt will deal with adware by procecuting anyone who dares to get on the Olympic bandwagon with spam or adware... Or will they? Nah.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @04:41AM (#18216084)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • freedom, like any other word, can have any definition you want. but it does seem like you failed to RTFA. as it said, the question is why another law is needed when they already have been given the trademark over terms that are used to associate with the Olympics. it may be just a more obvious way of saying what is already there. you can still use winter all you want, but you can't use it in a way that implies a real association with the Olympics(by which I mean that you are somehow a sponsor of the Oly

    • Challenge! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Excelcia ( 906188 ) <slashdot@excelcia.ca> on Saturday March 03, 2007 @06:01AM (#18216346) Homepage Journal
      The stupid masses you refer to must be the masses that read these articles, fall for the sensational headlines, and respond as you just have. The fact that no one is actually reading the the bill in question [parl.gc.ca] before leaping to wild conclusions about government censorship is rather annoying. The whole point of the bill is to stop ambush marketing with respect to the games. That is, to stop people from trying to look like they are official olympic supporters without actually being.

      I submit that the bill is very excellently worded, and I challenge you (or anyone else) to read the bill and come up with an example where the bill would unfairly restrict your freedom. By that, I mean restrict you from doing anything except ambush marketing. Anyone that needs to use any of the "restricted" words in order to promote legitimate business can do so:

      (4) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) prevents
      (g) the use by a person of their address, the geographical name of their place of business, an accurate indication of the origin of their wares or services, or an accurate description of their wares or services to the extent that the description is necessary to explain those wares or services to the public
      So, as you can see, that little exception covers pretty much any legitimate use you might have. Describe how exactly this is Orwellian, please.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by freeweed ( 309734 )
        Devil's advocate, but perhaps the fear is not what the wording SAYS RIGHT NOW, but how it's going to be interpreted.

        Didn't places like Olympic Paints get sued in Atlanta a few years back? Sure, they may have EVENTUALLY won - after the Oly folks cost them tens of thousands in legal bills...

        It may not be exact, but I distinctly remember dozens of long-time busienss in Atlanta being threatened/sued. Most if these places had been around for years, if not DECADES before the Olympics ever came to town.

    • Re:Orwell was right. (Score:5, Informative)

      by StrongAxe ( 713301 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @07:52AM (#18216606)
      From TFA:
      2) In determining whether a person has acted contrary to subsection (1), the court shall take into account any evidence that the person has used, in any language,
      (a) a combination of expressions set out in Part 1 of Schedule 3; or
      (b) the combination of an expression set out in Part 1 of Schedule 3 with an expression set out in Part 2 of that Schedule.
      ...
      1. Games, 2010, Twenty-ten, 21st, Twenty-first, XXIst, 10th, Tenth, Xth, Medals
      2. Winter, Gold, Silver, Bronze, Sponsor, Vancouver, Whistler

      This means you can fully well say "Winter" or "Games" all you want - you just can't say "Winter Games", "2010 Games", "Games Sponsor", "Vancouver Games", etc.

      This does not seem as ridiculous as, say, trademarking the word "Winter", which is the FUD implied by the original article and many posters seem to imply.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pruss ( 246395 )
        So in an ESL textbook the list "1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd" is in danger of violation, because it combines two items from the list, namely "21st" and "10th"?

        And the Science Fair and other well-established competitions should be careful about giving gold, silver and bronze medals, or at least calling them that?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Megane ( 129182 )

        According to what I see there, you can't say "Twenty-ten 10th" (no matter how stupid it sounds), but you can say "Winter events". List 2 requires something from list 1 to be a problem.

        And "Whistler?" What's that, the name of the mascot or something? I guess they can't have the 10th exhibition of Whistler's paintings this winter.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by zzyzx ( 15139 )
          Whistler is a mountain town north of Vancouver where the skiing events will be held.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by LordEd ( 840443 )
        I find that it is actually the combination of "Gold/Silver/Bronze" and "Medals" that is a bit disturbing. These medals have been sold by trophy stores forever. Its not just olympic sports that get awards.

        I think there may be one good part of this though under "exceptions":

        (4) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) prevents
        (b) the use of a trade-mark by an owner or licensee of the trade-mark if an owner or licensee of the trade-mark used it before March 2, 2007 and the use subsequent to that date is in asso

      • I don't think the law in the US says they own winter or anything, but we do have a special super-trademark set for them by law (and international treaty?). I suppose they have a point in not wanting people mislead about who paid the IOC money, but such sponsorships certainly don't make me want to buy their crap.

        Personally, I'm nothing but sick of the damn games. I honestly don't care, not even one tiny bit, about them.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Medgur ( 172679 )
        I think it's still problematic, because you know, Sponsored Winter Games never occur in Whistler, just outside of Vancouver.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 )
      "In this world, people do nothing, and only us geeks get up in arms."

      Because everybody loves the Olympics. Even Doctor Who, apparently.

  • Attention Slashdot owners! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @04:43AM (#18216096)
    Dear Mr. Zonk and Cmdrtaco,

    t has come to my attention that you have made an unauthorized use of the copyrighted words "WINTER", "VANCOUVER" and "OLYMPICS" (the "Work") in the preparation of a Slashdot article entitled "CANADIAN GOV'T GRANTS OLYMPICS OWNERSHIP OF WINTER" (the "Article"). I have reserved all rights in the Work, granted my the Canadian Government. Your work entitled "CANADIAN GOV'T GRANTS OLYMPICS OWNERSHIP OF WINTER" is essentially identical to the Work and clearly used the Work as its basis.

    As you neither asked for nor received permission to use the Work as the basis for the Article nor to make or distribute copies, including electronic copies, of same, I believe you have willfully infringed my rights under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $150,000 as set forth in Section 504(c)(2) therein.

    I demand that you immediately cease the use and distribution of all infringing works derived from the Work, and all copies, including electronic copies, of same, that you deliver to me, if applicable, all unused, undistributed copies of same, or destroy such copies immediately and that you desist from this or any other infringement of my rights in the future. If I have not received an affirmative response from you by [date give them about 2 weeks] indicating that you have fully complied with these requirements, I shall take further action against you.

    Very truly yours,

    The Krazy Kanuck Kommitee
  • Oh yeah, let's all blame Cananda, eh?

    • Alright, I got my First Post [slashdot.org] and had my fun, so now I've read TFA, and I have to ask...

      For example, the bill contains a list of expressions to be considered by the federal court to determine whether someone has misled the public into believing that their business is endorsed or associated with the Olympics.

      By that wording, it seems possible that "considered" merely means these are pointers, not actual rules -- thus, a federal court should "consider" someone's "Winter clothing line" or somesuch, but should

  • huh? (Score:3, Funny)

    by mastershake_phd ( 1050150 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @04:52AM (#18216130) Homepage
    What about the the First Amendment? What? They dont have that in Canada? How about the Second? They dont have that either? Well at least they got pot.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by The Hobo ( 783784 )
      Our "amendments" are called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [www.efc.ca] (I'd have used the official link but it seems the laws page of Justice Canada is down..)

      Our freedom of expression (freedom of speech) is listed in section 2. As far as the second amendment, we don't really have a need to carry guns.
  • Welcome to our Cold season play !
    or :
    01impyc gam3s !
    or
    That event which should rename nameless due to legal usage of certain word pertaining to greece, plays, and the snowy season.

  • Good going! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Excelcia ( 906188 ) <slashdot@excelcia.ca> on Saturday March 03, 2007 @04:59AM (#18216164) Homepage Journal
    No, "Winter" is not being given away, just the right to use the word in certain advertising contexts that could be confused with the winter games. Every Olympic games there are vulture companies that tie themselves in advertising knots to appear to be official supporters without actually being. They use phrases like "Official supporter of Winter sports". This always burns my bacon that they get away with it. If you want to cash in on the Olympics, then support them and get the rights. Otherwise, get lost.

    The courts have better things do deal with than tie themselves in knots over this. I can't see this really being applied except in blatant cases, and overall I think it's a good thing. Another thing I can't see is why this is being painted so negatively.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by smoker2 ( 750216 )
      Bollocks !

      If I owned a small guest house in London, I am banned from advertising that states "Thinking of coming to the London Olympics in 2012 ?, come stay with us at our comfortable hotel.

      Sorry, you have to buy the rights to use those words !

      That makes me a vulture does it ?

      Considering that it's largely taxpayers money that's building the fucking event, I think they could relax a bit on the heavy handed copyright.

      This is a good simile for software copyrights. Basic building blocks, common to all, arra

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by smoker2 ( 750216 )
        And when I said software copyrights, I did of course mean software patents :p

      • Re:Good going! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Excelcia ( 906188 ) <slashdot@excelcia.ca> on Saturday March 03, 2007 @05:38AM (#18216284) Homepage Journal
        First of all, the London you speak of is in the UK, not Canada, so you can consult your own government on what sort of laws you want to have over there.

        Secondly, reading the text of the bill, I don't see that even being a prohibited use. The stated reasoning of the bill is to act as "protection against certain misleading business associations". The wording instructs the courts to interpret whether the use of the protected words is for the purpose of misleading the consumer into believing that you are a sponsor of the games when you are not. Your case does not fall into that category, and would thus not be prohibited by the act. Thirdly, even if it was, if you owned a small guest house in Vancouver, you would not need to advertise "Thinking of coming to the Olympics in 2010" - you would more than likely be able to rent out the house in that time period. I don't even see a need to mention the event in that context - those shoping around will know.

        The act is written to narrowly interpret a broad spectrum of words. By that I mean, the courts are allowed to consider many words that could potentially be infringing, but those words must be used in a misleading manor in order to be prohibited.

        All in all, it's one of the better balancing acts my government has done in order to prohibit ambush marketing, and I aplaud it. So, your argument doesn't really hold water with me.
        • Furthermore, from the bill itself [parl.gc.ca]:

          (4) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) prevents
          (g) the use by a person of their address, the geographical name of their place of business, an accurate indication of the origin of their wares or services, or an accurate description of their wares or services to the extent that the description is necessary to explain those wares or services to the public;

          I wish people would read the text before going off on how unfair it is. It is very well written, and I invite people to re

          • Re:From the bill... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @07:36AM (#18216560) Homepage
            The bill itself still does reflect the true spirit of the modern Olympics, a cynical exercise in corporate marketing.

            Drugs, civil courts, politics, wildly inflated egos, corruption, endless corporate marketing, at least they could introduce some real blood sports to really reflect the true values of the modern Olympics, bring on the gladiators and the lions.

            I'm bored with the same old same old, and no I don't see the achievement in a person willing to run around in circles day after day after day.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by CokeBear ( 16811 )
              ...and no I don't see the achievement in a person willing to run around in circles day after day after day.


              This is the winter olympics we're talking about. They won't be running around in circles. They'll be skating around in circles!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by zotz ( 3951 )
          If it is as good as you say, a couple of things...

          It is a shame that the general laws in any country are not sufficient to deal with such deceiving of the public already.

          Can you trust them, I seem to remember some story about some Olympic Cafe from several years ago.

          Even if the cases eventually get thrown out, there can be a chilling effect. Especially in... wait for it... winter!

          Laws often get put on the books with some publicly stated purpose but then get used for whatever they can be used for.

          all the bes
        • ... London, Ontario
      • The Olympics is a crime syndicate - every country they infest they commit the same crimes against the population. How can they legally appropriate trademark rights ( since copyright & patents sure dont cover individual words one assumes Trademark Law is how they are doing this ) owned by the public domain ( that is, terms that can be used by anyone without restriction ) without the consent of all public-domain co-owners? They cant, its just not possible. But they get away with this bullshit every time.

        F

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by muffel ( 42979 )

      They use phrases like "Official supporter of Winter sports".
      If they actually are offical supporters of winter sports, then they should be able to advertise as such.
      But very likely, they are not. So then it's just a case of false advertising. No need to protect words like "winter".

      But there actually might be a need for stricter laws regarding false advertising. (In my view, there definitely is.)

  • the government 'has no time to deal with spam, spyware, privacy, or net neutrality, but commits to legislation on behalf of the organizers of a sporting event'
    Obviously. They don't understand any of those things (maybe privacy), but they do understand sports. Would you want them legislating things they don't understand?

  • I work for PepsiCo (Score:4, Interesting)

    by quokkapox ( 847798 ) <quokkapox@gmail.com> on Saturday March 03, 2007 @05:19AM (#18216238)

    We're promoting our official beverages and foods to be enjoyed at our alternative Quadrennial Cold-Climate-Oriented Amateur Athletic Competition Festival (QCCOAACF).

    [my apologies if QCCOAACF actually means something in some Inuit language]

  • The same craziness happened for the London Olympics too [bbc.co.uk]. (Although nothing our government does at the moment surprises me).

    Rich.

  • Make up new words to refer to the oly..er.. the ga... the wi... the sporting rubbish.
  • For using the terms Winter Wonderland and Reindeer Games. He's appealing based on prior art but it doesn't look good for the jolly ole boy. Guess some government officials can look forward to coal in their stockings.
  • Okay. I can see how it's generally bad to falseley claim direct involvement with the Olympics, but the Olympics have been getting more and more protective of their IP rights. I could understand this if it was a commercial concern, but the Olympics should be purer than that. It should be run for the benefit of the people, to encourage international cooperation and promote sport.

    When did things change?

    • When did things change?

      The same time everything else did.... When somebody figured out that there was a buck to be made. It seems to me that other age old traditions have changed in order to make a profit. Christmas used to be about giving...now it's about buying, Thanksgiving used to be about celebrating our bounty (in the US)...now it's about buying...

      Take war for example. Wars used to be declared for merely crappy reasons, now they're declared so Halliburton can get in on the looting and pillaging.

      The world changed to refl

    • Blame Atlanta '96. Besides the bombing, it was the most commercialized Olympics I can remember.
    • > ...the Olympics should be purer than that.

      Right. Let's get back to the _real_ spirit of the Olympics. As in 1936, for example.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 )
      "but the Olympics should be purer than that. It should be run for the benefit of the people, to encourage international cooperation and promote sport."

      You're funny. They're actually for the benefit of the organizers [wikipedia.org], to encourage nationalism [wikipedia.org] and promote athletes.

      "When did things change?"

      I suppose it's less about the Olympics in particular changing and more about the nature of professional (more or less) sports in general. There is a lot of money to be made in sports, and everybody wants their piece of the

  • As usual, no one ever bothered to read the bill... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) * on Saturday March 03, 2007 @06:52AM (#18216450) Journal
    I know my law degree is in the mail, but even a layman can understand the following:

    (1) No person shall, during any period prescribed by regulation, in association with a trade-mark or other mark, promote or otherwise direct public attention to their business, wares or services in a manner that misleads or is likely to mislead the public into believing that
    (a) the person's business, wares or services are approved, authorized or endorsed by an organizing committee, the COC or the CPC; or
    (b) a business association exists between the person's business and the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, an organizing committee, the COC or the CPC.

    The law essentially says you cannot mislead the public with advertising or promotions that suggest your business is endorsed by or connected to the Olympic Games and/or one of the organizing committess.

    The law goes on to say:

    (2) In determining whether a person has acted contrary to subsection (1), the court shall take into account any evidence that the person has used, in any language,
    (a) a combination of expressions set out in Part 1 of Schedule 3; or
    (b) the combination of an expression set out in Part 1 of Schedule 3 with an expression set out in Part 2 of that Schedule.

    So, the law does not prohibit a business from using the words "Vancouver", "winter" or "Whistler", only when they are used in combination with the following words and likely to cause to confusion with the Olympic trademarks and/or suggest an endorsement or relationship that does not exist:

    1. Games
    2. 2010
    3. Twenty-ten
    4. 21st
    5. Twenty-first
    6. XXIst
    7. 10th
    8. Tenth
    9. Xth
    10. Medals

    That's pretty much it. Draconian? Not really. Overly broad? Perhaps.
    • "The law essentially says you cannot mislead the public with advertising or promotions that suggest your business is endorsed by or connected to the Olympic Games and/or one of the organizing committess."

      OK, fine, but why specificity? Is it really legal to mislead the public now with advertising or promotions that suggest your business is endorsed by or connected to random entity when it is in fact not? If not, why is the law needed, if so, why not fix it and write a general law?

      all the best,

      drew
      http://www. [youtube.com]

    • Re:As usual, no one ever bothered to read the bill (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ArsenneLupin ( 766289 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @08:56AM (#18216860)

      The law essentially says you cannot mislead the public with advertising or promotions that suggest your business is endorsed by or connected to the Olympic Games and/or one of the organizing committess.
      Correct. But why the hell do they need to make a special case law for the Olympics. Wouldn't it make sense to make a general law that prohibits false claims of sponsorhip or affiliation? I smell a rat here.

      That's pretty much it. Draconian? Not really. Overly broad? Perhaps.
      Try overly narrow. The law should prohibit false claims of affiliation in general, and not make a special case out of the Olympics. Do not mention any words, but mention intent.


      If a business falsely claims to have sponsored an event or organization, give that organization the right to sue said business.


      If a business claims to have sponsored a non-existing organization, give consumer associations the right to sue.

    • The section i'm wondering about is (under exceptions):

      (4) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) prevents
      (b) the use of a trade-mark by an owner or licensee of the trade-mark if an owner or licensee of the trade-mark used it before March 2, 2007 and the use subsequent to that date is in association with
      (i) the same wares or services as those for which the trade-mark was used before that date,
      (ii) the wares or services in respect of which it is registered under the Trade-marks Act, or
      (iii) any other wares

    • The Edgar Winter Group and Arthur C. Clarke are screwed.
  • Bottom line - if you want your city to host an Olympics, you have to promise to pass this sort of law. A similar piece of legislation was passed in the UK a couple of weeks after London won 2012.

  • I'm really glad, as a Canadian, my government is doing this. I think we've seen in the past all the social, economic and environmental problems that stem from an Olympic host-city not have complete trademark sovereignty. Now all those cheap, knock-off t-shirts and gimmicky souvenirs will associated with large highly commercialized events will be avoided, hence the negative financial impact on the licensed vendors; and the environmental fallout of the landfills of the world when this crap get thrown out two

  • Crippled Speech (Score:3, Funny)

    by AlHunt ( 982887 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @09:05AM (#18216892) Homepage Journal
    Ever wonder why you often hear the superbowl referred to as "The Big Game"? Because the NFL owns the word "Superbowl" so it can't be used without their express, written permission. I guess broadcasters won't be able to refer to the "Winter Games" in Canada?

    Vancouver Winter Games
    Vancouver Winter Games
    Vancouver Winter Games
    Vancouver Winter Games

    Just wanted to get that in for our Canadian friends. If you read this in Canada, I am hereby claiming "Prior Art" and granting all Canadians free use of any or all parts of the phrase "Vancouver Winter Games" in perpetuity.

  • Michael Geist is misrepresenting the bill (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    From the fucking bill:

    (2) In determining whether a person has acted contrary to subsection (1), the court shall take into account any evidence that the person has used, in any language,
    (a) a combination of expressions set out in Part 1 of Schedule 3; or
    (b) the combination of an expression set out in Part 1 of Schedule 3 with an expression set out in Part 2 of that Schedule.

    Words like "Winter" and "Vancouver" appear in Part 2 of Schedule 3. Using these words by themselves in combination with each other fo

  • Fascism is government by corporations.
  • After an election, do all politicians have commen sense removed? It doesn't matter where they are they all seem capable of this kind of stupidity. This might prove evolution of a new species: the Thundering Herd of Dumbass!
  • The olympics have a history of this. Far too much corruption, intimidation, and plain out extortion. The fact that they try to enforce some kind of corporate ownership of everyday words does not suprise me.
    I always go out of my way to avoid the products of ANY company that aligns itself with the olympic brand. It's marketing at its most pathetic and annoying.
    The way the olympic commitee jets around the world expecting to be showered with gifts and bribes in order to choose cities is possibly the worst examp
  • Part of me would rather the government leave things as they are vis a vis some of the stuff Geist says they should be doing. By mucking about with the games stuff and other trivia they are not bothering with the MPAA and RIAA's sponsored Canadian proxies. As people here know, at present we can download music etc, etc nice and legal like and other stuff. While I would like some of the things Geist mentioned addressed, reality has taught me that once you involve the government that such things rarely go as yo
  • Setting completely aside the appropriateness of the actual content, I'm wondering about the purveyors. Since when is it the responsibility of the federal government to create laws to police specific marks? If the federal government (I guess it would have to be the US, to make this analogy work) were to pass a law specifically reserving the word "Microsoft" to MSFT or "Apple" to AAPL, would that be the same thing, and would it be within their realm of responsibility in the first place? Why don't the Olymp
  • Now that they own winter, cant they take it away? I'm sick and tired of it.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday March 03, 2007 @05:35PM (#18220572)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close