Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
“Ambush marketing,” a term coined by Jerry Wexler, manager of global marketing efforts for American Express in the 1980s, refers to the marketing activities of companies that manage to associate themselves, or their products or services, with high-profile events without paying to become an “official sponsor.” Wexler lucidly describes an ambush marketer's motivations in the 2002 “IEG Sponsorship Report” published by IEG, Inc.:
Given the escalating price of major sponsorships, it is hardly surprising that some companies willingly pass on the opportunity to sponsor and search instead for ways to compete in the sponsored space without bearing the onerous costs and the heavy burden of the scandals and other misadventures often associated with large, modern sponsored properties.
The point is that sponsors do not buy the rights to all avenues leading to the public's awareness of a given property, and more importantly, do not buy the rights to the thematic space in which the purchased property is usually the only one resident. In other words, all else other than that which is specifically purchased is up for grabs.
This article looks at several examples of ambush marketers seizing opportunities that are “up for grabs” as well as the corresponding legal strategies employed by event organizers and official sponsors to combat such activities. Overall, despite the best efforts of the various event organizers and official sponsors, ambush marketing cases are rarely actionable. Careful ambush marketers avoid using the trademarks, trade names, copyrights or other exclusive intellectual property rights associated with a given sponsored event, making it difficult to successfully assert infringement claims.
Sponsoring Media Coverage of an Event
In 1984 the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) granted exclusive sponsorship rights in the film category to Fuji, but did so without also locking up related broadcast rights. As a result, rival film company Kodak was able to step in and sponsor the ABC television broadcasts of the Olympics, seizing upon an ancillary promotional opportunity that did not otherwise cause a breach in the agreement between the IOC and Fuji.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?