Canadian Gov't Grants Olympics Ownership of Winter 145
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?'"
Kills off advertising (Score:1, Interesting)
I work for PepsiCo (Score:4, Interesting)
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]
As usual, no one ever bothered to read the bill... (Score:5, Interesting)
(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.
Michael Geist is misrepresenting the bill (Score:1, Interesting)
From the fucking bill:
Words like "Winter" and "Vancouver" appear in Part 2 of Schedule 3. Using these words by themselves in combination with each other for commercial purposes does not violate the Act. In order to do that, you have to mix in phrases from Part 1 of Schedule 3, which are slightly more specific phrases like "2010" and "Twenty-first".
The Act is clearly stupid and overly broad. It would be nice if someone challenged such that the Supreme Court could strike it down (and we all know that they would). That said, it's unfortunate that Michael Geist feels he has to lie to get his point across. Attacking the bill by what it says is a perfectly valid position to take. What Michael Geist has down is built up a strawman to tear down, and misrepresented the bill. This really makes me question his credibility on other things he's said.
Repeat of 1988 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Challenge! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Repeat of 1982 (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)