Introduction
Ambush marketing has turned into a more important and controversial occurrence in the business side of international competition. It can be defined as the strategic initiative of a brand to be linked with a big-time sports event, like the Olympic Games, the FIFA World Cup, or the ICC Cricket World Cup, without making any official sponsorship payment. Although the conduct involved may not necessarily encroach on the trademark infringement or the misrepresentation of any particular product, it usually serves to diminish the commercial exclusivity given to said official sponsors and, hence, diminishes the fundamentals upon which sponsorships are marketed in the first place. In an age where digital communication is blazing fast, where influencer culture and the ability to carry out real-time branding have become the order of the day, ambush marketing functions at the fringe of legality, in exploitation of democratic and administrative flaws of intellectual property law and enforcement mechanisms. The issues around ambush marketing involving legal complexities are to be discussed here, especially the aspect of trademark protection within the digital economy and the necessity to rebalance the approach of enforcement of commercial rights and competitive fairness and freedom of speech.
Legal Dimensions and Event-Specific Responses
Traditionally, trademark law serves to defend the integrity of brand image, guard against consumer confusion and safeguard against misappropriation of goodwill. There is, however, an unlikelihood that ambush marketing entails outright abuse of registered trademarks. It is instead working in grey areas such as; the use of symbolic language, event-themed imagery or reference indirectly to the sporting spectacle, raising it to the minds of the audience without the actual infringement of the trademark rights. This approach breaks the traditional lines of infringement because the legal test of likelihood of confusion, without necessarily having to find an easy case, does not apply. As an example, a company can introduce a campaign during the Olympics with such generic words as gold, victory, or national pride, although they are non-infringing and produce a suggestive connection to the event. Courts have mostly been reluctant to abridge such expression unless there is concrete evidence of deception or misrepresentation.
One way through which host nations have sought to respond to these constraints is through the creation of event-specific laws to strengthen the safety buffer around their signature sporting events. The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act of the United Kingdom in 2006 enacted a new form of intellectual property right, the so-called sui generis intellectual property right called the London Olympics Association Right, intending to criminalise the commercial use of wording or visual materials that might imply an unauthorised association with the Games. As an example, South Africa, fearing that the official partnerships between FIFA and its partners would be threatened in the same way as in the 2010 FIFA World Cup, amended its Merchandise Marks Act by adding special event marks that offered protection beyond trademark registration. Such legislative instruments are time-bound and pointed legal tools, which give event organisers wide authority to curb commercial activities that may not necessarily amount to infringement of IP rights. But this concept of protection begs the normative question of whether states are overregulating and, in the process, criminalising associative speech that should otherwise be within the realm of lawful participation in the marketplace.
The Indian Experience: Legal Ambiguity and Judicial Restraint
India, which boasts a large population that watches sporting events and a flourishing advertising market, has not accepted specific laws to deal with ambush marketing. As such, the problem is addressed in the context of general trademark law, acts of passing off, and, to a certain degree, copyright and unfair competition law. The Indian courts have exhibited a hesitance in applying the borderlines of these doctrines to repress backup commercial relationships. In the ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises (2003) case, the Delhi High Court had to decide whether or not the use of a cricket theme in an advertisement during the ICC World Cup constituted a misrepresentation. Although the Court admitted that ICC had the exclusive sponsorship rights of its commercial partners, the conduct did not amount to unlawful acts, as, without the direct indication of the sponsorship or the utilisation of registered brands, the conduct is not considered illegal. This is an indication of a less directly reflected judicial fear that overzealous application can find its way into the suppression of valid commercial speech and artistic freedom, in the absence of polished statutory texts.
The restraint exhibited by the judiciary of India bodes well that there is a need to have a clear, balanced and event-sensitive legal fabric. On the one hand, the commercial right to the protection of commercial rights promotes investments in sponsorship in sports, but on the other hand, the lack of legislative clarity reveals little to the court to direct in new and oblique specifications of brand association. It leaves a regulatory gap, which makes well-funded brands ready to risk the grey areas of IP law at the expense of smaller sponsors and event proliferators who end up bearing the financial implications of such covert ambush misadventures.
Digital Disruption and the Enforcement Crisis
The outbreak of online marketing has also contributed immensely towards the problem of enforcing protection related to ambush marketing. In the hyperconnected world nowadays, brand presence can no longer be limited to the context of traditional media. The ability to win a social media campaign like a hashtag or have your brand tied to an influencer's content or user-generated content has created new, decentralised opportunities through which brands can tie themselves to a current sports event. These types of marketing are light-footed, temporary and hard to track. In an example, a brand can farm out such posts to a social media influencer who promotes a thematic post with a key sports event, without any implication of a protected IP. In many cases where legal action is considered, the rapidity of the propagation of the content, as well as the complications involved in tracking down the real origin of infringement, make it nearly impossible to enforce the same using ordinary court proceedings, which are not entirely effective.
Moreover, democratisation of the process of content creation has flattened the boundary between commercial and non-commercial speech. A fan-created meme or viral TikTok campaign about an event can have its roots wholly unrelated to the brand, but can be snapped up by the brand to leverage it. This turns out to be a legal and vindictive minefield when it comes to holding brands responsible in these kinds of situations. The current notice and take-down regimes under the intermediary liability systems do not provide much protection to the sponsors of the events when there is no direct and traceable usage of the protected IP. Not only is such an enforcement gap crippling of the sponsor-event exclusivity model, it also encourages brands to continue testing more and more subtle, indirect ambushing methods.
Player Image Rights and Unauthorised Associations
In addition to event branding, a less noticeable type of ambush marketing occurs with an unauthorised use of the athlete's persona. As star athletes make up the heart and soul of the modern sports brand, renowned brands usually tend to cash in on their popularity with suggestive marketing ventures that have nothing directly to do with the player endorsement. The use of the image and likeness (NIL) without that person in the field of commercial exploitation leads to questions on personality rights and unjust enrichment. In states where the right of publicity is both statutorily and judicially established, as in the United States, athletes have been capable of establishing control over such associations. The Indian case is constituted rather differently in that India does not have a formal legal regime on personality rights. Although the Delhi High Court in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012) did acknowledge the right of a celebrity to legally oppose any unauthorised commercialisation of his/her image, the legal standpoint on the matter is already ragged and underdeveloped.
Such a gap is especially problematic in times of a major event, when the presence of athletes skyrockets and brands make use of that without their permission. Lack of explicit protection not only compromises the autonomy of athletes and the sponsorships by contract but also allows third parties to free-ride. With no image rights that can be enforceable, both the athletes and the official sponsors do not have the necessary protection against brand manipulation and brand dilution of value, to the detriment of the sports marketing system.
Competition Law and Ethical Concerns: Beyond Legal Infringement
Although to a large extent, it is still concentrated on law enforcement, there is also another underlying aspect of ambush marketing on how competition, ethics, and commercial fairness should operate in business. Sponsorship of the major international sports events is highly priced to the extent that visibility (of a sports event) is monopolised by a few multinational corporations. This competitive advantage, in turn, renders it almost impossible for smaller companies or provincial businesses could compete with larger businesses or even nationwide businesses on an equal footing. The result is that in most instances, ambush marketing emerges to be a necessary trade, and not trickery. Excessive regulation, especially along the lines of event-specific criminal codes or the large-scale use of injunctions, will swing the pendulum too far towards monopolistic commercial domination. This kills market diversity and innovation and can constitute a violation of implied commercial free speech. Policy-wise one should aim to find a balance between protecting sponsorship investments and at the same time make sure the legal mechanisms are not employed as a means to establish anti-competitive silos within the sports economy.
Toward a Nuanced Enforcement Strategy
Owing to the intricacies of legislation, technology, market forces, as well as morality, the future of ambush marketing legislation shall have to be freed from the inflexible titles of law and unlawfulness. The three pillars allowing a refined approach of the enforcement to be constructed are inclusivity, adaptability, and technological integration. First, planners should think about tier models of sponsorship where different levels of brand association can be purchased at differentiated levels. This would allow participation at a wider level and minimise the attraction of unauthorised association. Second, the legal networks ought to promote co-regulation, the integration of state-based IP protection with co-regulatory codes of conduct and self-regulatory systems of the industry. Third, there should technological boost in enforcing. This permits the possibility to use artificial intelligence and algorithm monitoring systems to recognise and react to digital ambush marketing in real-time, along with lessening dependence on litigious, usually costly and time-wasting procedures. Lastly, event-related IP laws need to be harmonised internationally with some urgency. The creation of such a model law/framework under WIPO might be able to provide coherent standards in different jurisdictions and lead to predictable and equitable enforcement in an ever more globalised sports economy.
Conclusion
The phenomenon of ambush marketing, which was originally a fringe commercial strategy, has become a strategic problem which poses a termination point to the intellectual property laws, media laws, as well as the ethics of branding. It persists because it exists beyond the capacity of normal enforcement efforts to catch it, particularly in the digital age where communication is instantaneous, international and frequently anonymous. With the commercial interests in international sporting events, specifically global sporting events becoming stronger, the necessity of having a strong yet at the same time balanced regulatory framework of such events that considers ambush marketing as an infringement and at the same time keeping in account market access, fairness, and innovation also comes strongly into question. The sphere of trademark law should be continuously developed alongside the sphere of advertisement, and even the organisers of events should take a broader view of enforcement, which ensures the maintenance of sponsorship value, as well as positions the commercial state of uniform commercial assertion.
To view the original article click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
