de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean
English
 
Help Guide Disclaimer Contact us Login
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Contribution to Collected Edition

Ambush Marketing: Examining the Development of an Event Organizer Right of Association (December 8, 2011)

MPS-Authors
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons51182

Ericsson,  Seth
MPI for Innovation and Competition, Max Planck Society;

Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts available
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Ericsson, S. (2014). Ambush Marketing: Examining the Development of an Event Organizer Right of Association (December 8, 2011). In N. R. Lee, A. Kur, A. Ohly, & G. Westkamp (Eds.), Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition and Publicity - Convergences and Development (pp. 165-188). Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-001A-04CF-3
Abstract
This article analyses the potential impact of mega-event organizer (MEOs) efforts to combat advertising practices commonly lumped together and referred to as 'ambush marketing.' In particular, the article examines the MEO lobbying efforts to expand national trademark and unfair competition systems to include an event organizer right of association. In order to present ambush marketing as an advertising tool, Section 2 begins by giving examples of ambush marketing methods, i.e. competitive marketing techniques regularly employed by nonsponsor businesses around mega-events. Section 2 then goes on to define ambush marketing in light of these selected examples, existing law and an event organizer right of association. Section 3 introduces approaches MEOs have developed and implemented to reduce the avenues open to, and supposed detrimental effects of, ambush marketing in the absence of an event organizer right of association. A review of these strategies helps to contextualize the perceived need to expand legal systems to include an event organizer right of association. Section 4 provides a survey of the sui generis protection regimes a growing number of countries have enacted so as to shield MEOs and their corporate sponsors from the alleged ill-effects of ambush marketing. Section 5 concludes by critiquing the introduction of such laws from both a legal and a policy perspective. It is argued that the danger at play here is not so-called ambush marketing; instead, the real threat is posed by the MEO frontal attack on competitive advertising practices.