GALA Gazette: Which stadium? Who cares, as long as it's not ambushed...

ASIA PACIFIC: NEW ZEALAND

Which stadium? Who cares, as long as it's not ambushed...
Author: Erich Bachmann, Hesketh Henry

While New Zealanders' attention has been distracted by the debate about which stadium should be the venue when New Zealand hosts the Rugby World Cup in 2011, work has been progressing in the background to ensure that, wherever the event is held, it will be safe from unwanted marketing. Following the lead of the UK which is hosting the 2012 Olympic Games, New Zealand has introduced legislation aimed at pulling the rug from underneath "ambush marketers" who would seek to cash in on the exposure that such major events generate.

The Major Events Management Bill (the "Bill") is however, not solely aimed at the Rugby World Cup, although this event was undoubtedly one of its key motivators. It is a generic piece of legislation aimed at discouraging ambush marketing for all future international events which New Zealand hosts, in order to promote New Zealand as a desirable destination for such events.

Inevitably, major events such as sporting world cups and the Olympic Games attract large (and, once in a stadium, captive) audiences, as well as significant media attention. This presents a goldmine of exposure for those advertisers who negotiate with the event organisers to become official sponsors, but also costs them considerable sums of money.

However, such events likewise present an irresistible opportunity for some to take a free ride on the publicity generated, by either creating a false impression that they are linked with the event, or by somehow getting the product exposed in connection with the event, much to the irritation of those who have paid to get the publicity. These two types of activity, known as ambush marketing "by association" and "by intrusion" are the behaviour the new Bill seeks to clamp down on.

Currently, options for attacking ambush marketing can be found under the Trade Marks Act 2002, the Copyright Act 1994, and the Fair Trading Act 1986, for example, but these do not cover all situations that might arise in connection with a major international event. The Bill will supplement (but not replace) these existing legal avenues, but only for events that are deemed to be sufficiently significant, i.e. they generate tourism opportunities, attract large numbers of fans and participants, and are covered in the international media. Event organisers will have to apply for a declaration of status as a "major event" before the protection afforded under the legislation will be able to be taken advantage of.

Key measures introduced by the Bill include:

extended time periods of protection which last, not only during the event itself, but up to 30 days after it has ended to catch any associated follow-up activities;
the ability to protect words and emblems associated with the event that may not be able to be trade-marked;
border protection measures for materials bearing those words or emblems;
prohibitions on representations which wrongly suggest an association with an event;
set geographical "clean zones" around event locations in which no unauthorised advertising or street trading may be carried on. This restriction would extend to anything that can be reasonably seen or discerned by those in the clean zone, and potentially to major transport arteries taking fans to and from the event; and
both criminal and civil remedies (including account of profits, damages and corrective advertising, as well as specialised enforcement officers to address violations in a more immediate way through warnings, seizure of goods and entry into premises.