
Getting around the London 2012 branding police - billpg
http://blog.jgc.org/2012/04/getting-around-london-2012-branding.html
======
soult
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.

~~~
patrickk
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...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/world-
cup-2010/7830319/World-Cup-2010-Police-arrest-women-in-Dutch-orange-
dresses.html)

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

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

Insane.

~~~
fennecfoxen
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.

~~~
taligent
It's because normal people understand that:

a) Companies who sponsor an event have a right to not be screwed over.

b) Most taxpayers don't want to pay more for the Olympics then they have to.

~~~
mcantelon
>Companies who sponsor an event have a right to not be screwed over. > >Most
taxpayers don't want to pay more for the Olympics then they have to.

It's stupid to pay to host a branded event that won't let us talk about it.

The modern Olympics, at its root, is a scam. A big money party is hosted so
local businesses and connected contractors can make a killing and the expenses
get charges to taxpayers. It's always justified as economic stimulus but it's
the most vague, frivolous possible means of economic stimulus and tax dollars
should not be spent on it.

------
jaylevitt
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."

~~~
taejo
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...](http://www.worldcupblog.org/world-cup-2010/kulula-vs-fifa-round-two-
not-next-year-not-last-year-but-somewhere-in-between.html)

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

------
drcube
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.

~~~
gaius
_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.

~~~
rmc
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"

~~~
arethuza
Of course the UK has a constitution, what we don't have is a single "core
document" that codifies the constitution:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_King...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom)

~~~
jessriedel
From an American perspective, the importance of the constitution is _not_ that
it is a single document, but rather that it is substantially more difficult to
change than normal law. The UK has no constitution in the specific but
important sense that no laws passed by Parliament can be "unconstitutional".

~~~
aidenn0
Ah yes, this is why while the UK has rule of parliament the US has a non-
elected ruling council of 9 wise elders.

~~~
jessriedel
Well, first, the 9 elders only have input insofar as the meaning of the
constitution is disputable; they don't get to decide whether the general idea
of freedom of speech is a good thing day-by-day like the UK parliament does.
But more to your point, that the US constitution leads to rules being created
by small group far removed from the election mechanism: yes, that is _exactly_
the point. The authors of the constitution were quite deliberate in their
choice to insulate several parts of the government from the whims of the
people.

------
dabeeeenster
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-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/21/olympics2012-civil-
liberties)

~~~
excuse-me
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.

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

------
dexen
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
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.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
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.

~~~
gouranga
Spot on. You speak for the majority of the population.

Living in London, I know no-one who supports it at all.

------
justincormack
Charlie Brooker seems to be asking to be sued
<https://twitter.com/charltonbrooker>

~~~
njs12345
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>

~~~
ktizo
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.

~~~
mjwalshe
Acuualy the written parlimentry sketches are much funnier.

------
drewcrawford
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...](http://www.bl.uk/sportandsociety/exploresocsci/businesseconomics/business/articles/intproperty.html)

------
Spoom
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?

~~~
jessriedel
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.

~~~
petercooper
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.

------
sdfjkl
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...](http://www.london2012.com/about-us/the-people-delivering-the-
games/the-london-organising-committee/)

------
hef19898
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?!?!?!!

------
helipad
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.

------
ilitirit
Reminds me of Kulula Airlines vs FIFA

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

------
zerostar07
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.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>' _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.

~~~
zerostar07
Whoa. I 'm running out of ideas, what do you think about "The Greek Athletics"

------
JohnnyFlash
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_one
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.

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

~~~
archangel_one
You can get away with a lot in specific cases of trademarks. For example,
Cadbury have been able to exert some protection of their usage of purple, but
only for chocolate wrappers - not for everything. Similarly here, I can see
how the IOC or LOCOG or whoever can exert control over "London 2012" which has
a huge association with their brand. Generally it comes down to a fuzzy test
of "would it be misleading", and for most people "London 2012 Hotel" probably
would be if the hotel wasn't really associated with the event.

~~~
rogerbraun
I don't think anybody questions if this is legal in the UK. Just if this is
sane. And it clearly is not. Of course, I can see why there should be a
trademark for "London Olympics 2012", but why for just the city name and the
year?

Also, I think it really clashes with the supposed spirit of the games. If it
is not a friendly, peaceful and international battle of athletes, but just
another event where McDonald's and Samsung can advertise without any
distractions, why do we need it? And why should a city finance it?

------
iuguy
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!

------
waivej
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.

------
crjn
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

------
petercooper
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.

------
casca
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.

~~~
bluedanieru
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.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _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).

------
bluedanieru
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
"the fucking Games"

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

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

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

~~~
viraptor
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.

~~~
slantyyz
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.

~~~
shrikant
I wonder if they would do anything about the Olympia Exhibition Centre. [1]

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_%28London%29>

~~~
slantyyz
That's a good question (I'm Canadian and can't speak to London). I know most
of the small businesses they go after can't afford the legal fees to fight
them.

In Vancouver, our House of Commons gave the IOC an exemption that allowed them
to go after small businesses:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_and_controversies_over...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_and_controversies_over_the_2010_Winter_Olympics#Trademark_enforcement)

