Is there no such thing as bad publicity?

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Is there no such thing as bad publicity?

Though Budweiser was the official beer company sponsor of the 2010 World Cup, it was rival Bavaria that got all the attention.

The Dutch brewer received significant media coverage last year when a large contingent of women attended the Holland versus Denmark game in orange minidresses bearing its logo. The stunt led to arrests and charges by FIFA that the company had engaged in ambush marketing. As South African authorities attempted to sort out what led to the incident, the game was over. Bavaria, meanwhile, had made an impact.


“Ambush marketing is the type of thing where there’s no such thing as bad publicity,” Ayala Deutsch, NBA’s senior vice president and chief intellectual property counsel, said yesterday at the panel Trademarks in Sports: Ambush Marketing and Protecting Athlete Names and Images.


Indeed, brand owners are being increasingly creative in finding ways to benefit from the publicity of major sports events without being official sponsors. The Bavaria stunt falls under grassroots campaigns, while others have used sweepstakes, product giveaways and implications of association using indirect references or images.


But a balance has to be struck. Successful ambush marketing can confuse consumers, and make events less attractive to official sponsors—potentially reducing future revenues.


“This is not exclusively a consumer confusion protection issue,” Deutsch said.


To protect sponsors’ rights, many event organizers expect or require the host country to enact temporary laws on ambush marketing. In November last year, an INTA Board Resolution set out principles and guidelines that should be considered when countries consider adopting ambush marketing legislation in order to minimize any detrimental effects on existing trademark rights, other pre-existing rights, and fair uses.


In 2006, following the International Olympic Committee’s decision to stage the 2012 Games in London, the London Olympic Games and Paralympics Games Act was introduced. The law outlines what brand owners can and can’t do in their advertising. Companies that aren’t official sponsors, for example, can’t use “games” and “London” in the same advertisement. The Act is “unique, new and different—some might say draconian,” said Jeremy Dickerson of Burges Salmon in the UK.


Because the effects of ambush marketing tactics often outlast the events they’re connected with, the challenge for authorities is enforcing the rules. “This has to be done very, very quickly,” Dickerson said. “One day would be too long, an hour about right.”


“I wish them luck getting that done quickly,” he added, drawing some laughs from the crowded room.


And the risk for events organizers is that too much enforcement can backfire, as they are accused of being heavy-handed, as Ross Parsonage, of Rouse in Beijing, explained. But, he added: “If the law isn’t not used against the large brand owners who are ambushing, why have it?”


As brand owners prepare for the London Olympic Games, they may look to Beijing 2008 for reference. Speedo and Puma both gained coverage on the heels of the successes of the athletes wearing their lines, despite not being sponsors. Perhaps the most iconic image of the Games was of Chinese gymnast Li Ning running across an unscrolling screen to light the torch. He, by the way, helms a major athletic company. “Ambush marketing has changed, and it’s no longer about fixed outdoor advertising,” said Parsonage.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article