Author: Nathanael Young

Attack and Counterattack

Recent news stories have highlighted the lengths FIFA are prepared to go to in protecting its brand.

Last Monday’s Holland v Denmark game saw 36 female supporters wearing orange mini dresses participating in an ambush marketing stunt for the Dutch beer brand Bavaria.

Ambush marketing, the practice of finding a way to promote a brand at a high profile event without paying a sponsorship, has long been a marketing strategy of Bavaria. At the 2006 world cup in Germany, 1000 fans wearing branded underwear were denied entry to a Holland game, and more recently it has been targeting the Dutch national team matches.

FIFA has promised to come down hard on any brand trying to highjack the tournament and this was the case last Monday. The group of women were ejected from the stadium and two of the 36 were later arrested. In addition to this, the ITV pundit Robbie Earl has been sacked by ITV as it has emerged that some of the tickets used by Bavaria were from the ex-Jamaica and Wimbledon midfielder’s  allocation;  which he was  prohibited from redistributing to third parties.

Logo or No Logo

With the world cup now in full swing, businesses around the country have included references to the event in their advertising and promotional activity in a bid to cash in on its popularity. Some of those are official sponsors, who have paid millions to be able to do so; however, a considerably large number of businesses haven’t paid for the privilege. They simply seek to associate their business  with the  pride and passion that the tournament evokes, with the ultimate aim of increasing sales. However it does come with some risks attached.

Many business may not be aware of the extent to which FIFA have rights over and above ordinary trademark or copyright protection in South Africa.  FIFA has every motivation to stamp out such practices, which threaten the sponsorship revenues from their official partners. It already has trademark protection over a number of words, like ‘2010 FIFA World Cup’ and images, such as its official emblem for the tournament. The host country has gone so far to keep FIFA and its sponsors happy, it has created a new list of prohibited marks under special legislation, even including the use of ‘2010’ on its own, which is not a trademark. 

For businesses operating in the UK, the situation is rather less draconian.  However,  there are reports that FIFA has obtained a ruling against a sports bar near the Loftus stadium using phrases such as ‘World Cup 2010’.

Things to Remember…

 The most important guidance is to always avoid the using of any FIFA artwork or branding – such as its logo or the ‘man kicking ball’ official 2010 world cup emblem. For more information and guidance about when you can cannot use World Cup related terms, FIFA has provided a Public Information Sheet which states what is acceptable and the terms of use.
Use of the term ‘World Cup’ or similar phrases is less likely to be an issue, although each situation is different, so it is important to take legal advice in order to avoid prosecution.

Authors: Julie Gingell & Simon Walsh

It was widely reported last week that Unilever, the maker of Marmite, took steps to protect its brand by threatening legal action against the British National Party to stop it from using a jar of Marmite in its party political broadcasts.

The jar of spread appeared in a BNP video which featured on its website. Nick Griffin claimed that the BNP had not been responsible for this because it had, allegedly, been inserted by “one of the people to whom [the Party] had given the broadcast to review” However, he went on to indicate that the jar of Marmite had been added to the broadcast in response to Marmite’s “the Love Party and the Hate Party” advertising campaign which has been running on television, radio and the internet. The BNP claim that the “Hate Party” was based on itself. Mr Griffin said, “Although we are not responsible for whoever it was who inserted the Marmite jars into the internet version of the broadcast, we do see the amusing side, quite simply if you start a spoof you should expect to get spoofed”.

Unilever stated, “Neither Marmite nor any other Unilever brand are aligned to any political party. We are currently initiating injunction proceedings against the BNP to remove the Marmite jar from the online broadcast and prevent them from using it in future”.

The video clip has now been removed from the BNP website but is still available on YouTube.

The BNP was involved in a similar controversy back in March 2009 when the Manic Street Preachers’ hit “If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next” was played over some of its web content. After pressure was applied by the Manic’s record label, Sony, the song was removed with the BNP claiming the song had been mistakenly streamed from the site.

Brand reputation is everything and in today’s high speed digital economy, you can see why Sony and Unilever were quick to move against what they understood to be infringements of their intellectual property rights. Years of investment in PR and brand development can be wiped out if your product/brand becomes associated with an offering that is perceived to be unfavorable. Both incidents demonstrate the importance of policing the use of your brands and products, especially on the internet, to ensure that they are not used for an unauthorised purpose.

Author: Nat Young

The European Court of Justice has finally ruled on the question of the application of trademark law to keywords.

When someone enters a trademarked word into an internet search engine, the natural result is that sites including the trademarked word appear, in order of relevance.

However, search engine providers often guarantee traders that their sites will appear as sponsored links in the event someone enters certain terms. This practice - particularly associated with Google’s Adwords system - means that a website can appear as a result of a search even without the search term being displayed on the site.

Trademark proprietors are usually unhappy about this practice, since it means that their websites appear alongside competitor’s websites, even where a search had been made for their specific mark. This means that unofficial or even counterfeit sellers can gain as much prominence for their sites as official distributors.

On the other hand, the use of registered trademarks as paid-for keywords is clearly a rather different kind of use to that usually in issue in trademark litigation. Normally, a trademark is used when it appears as a visible sign. With paid for keywords, the trademark did not need to be shown on a site for it to appear in the list of sponsored sites. The trademark was processed in a way invisible to the consumer carrying out the search.

The issue has been often considered in the US courts, but in the UK there was much less authority on the point. Thus trademark lawyers were eagerly awaiting the ECJ’s decision in Google France v Louis Vuitton Malletier, which concerned the use of Louis Vuitton’s trademarks by Google via Adwords.

In simple terms, the court cleared Google, deciding that search engine providers could have a system of keywords without that amounting to trade mark infringement.

However, the court was not so accommodating to advertisers who used others’ trade marks as paid-for keywords. It held that they could still be liable, if their sites made it difficult or impossible for the average internet user to tell if the goods came from the trade mark proprietor or a third party.

For this reason, there are still uncertainties from the point of view of traders using keywords, as opposed to search engine providers. Trade mark proprietors will no doubt start looking in this direction, and it will be interesting to see what tests the courts develop when considering what makes it ‘difficult’ for the average internet user to tell the origin of goods.

Author: Nat Young

News that the Sugababes’ founder member Mutya Buena has applied for a trademark in the word ‘Sugababes’ has already provoked considerable discussion.

When their last original member left in 2009, the Sugababes reopened discussion of a paradox as old as philosophy: whether something could survive the replacement of all its component parts.  But whatever the importance of the Sugababes’ band, it is now the Sugababes’ brand - the cornerstone of a multi-million pound business - that is at stake.

The legal position between the parties remains to be seen; Buena clearly considers herself entitled to the mark as a founder member, but the suggestion from the current trio seems to be that Island Records have the rights in the name, although they have no trademark.

This is not the first time different band members have struggled for control of a brand. In 2003 a case involving the heavy metal group Saxon went to the Court of Appeal, where it was held that, in the absence of a partnership agreement specifying otherwise, members of a band were members of a partnership at will, which was dissolved when they split up. The name and the goodwill built up under it belonged to the partnership jointly, and not to any one individual or individuals, whether or not they claimed to be surviving members. In that case the trademark application was refused, but it was one of the original members that objected to it.

The legal issues in this case remain to be seen, but the practical issues are familiar to all intellectual property lawyers. Names - whether names of companies, names of bands or names of products -  can become commercially important overnight. It is crucial that the ownership and registration of the intellectual property rights in names is given thought at the earliest possible stage. Otherwise issues can arise, often years after the name first comes to prominence. It is unlikely that we have seen the last of the Sugababes trademark application, and still more unlikely we have seen the last case of this type.