Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Gov't Grants Olympics Ownership of Winter

Posted by Zonk on from the i-owned-winter-once-but-gave-it-away-for-magic-beans dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports that the Canadian government has introduced new legislation that grants Vancouver Olympic organizers broad powers to police the use of any commercial use of the words associated with the Olympics. These incredibly include 'winter, Vancouver, and games.' As Geist notes, the government 'has no time to deal with spam, spyware, privacy, or net neutrality, but commits to legislation on behalf of the organizers of a sporting event?'"

3 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Good going! by Excelcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, "Winter" is not being given away, just the right to use the word in certain advertising contexts that could be confused with the winter games. Every Olympic games there are vulture companies that tie themselves in advertising knots to appear to be official supporters without actually being. They use phrases like "Official supporter of Winter sports". This always burns my bacon that they get away with it. If you want to cash in on the Olympics, then support them and get the rights. Otherwise, get lost.

    The courts have better things do deal with than tie themselves in knots over this. I can't see this really being applied except in blatant cases, and overall I think it's a good thing. Another thing I can't see is why this is being painted so negatively.

    1. Re:Good going! by Excelcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First of all, the London you speak of is in the UK, not Canada, so you can consult your own government on what sort of laws you want to have over there.

      Secondly, reading the text of the bill, I don't see that even being a prohibited use. The stated reasoning of the bill is to act as "protection against certain misleading business associations". The wording instructs the courts to interpret whether the use of the protected words is for the purpose of misleading the consumer into believing that you are a sponsor of the games when you are not. Your case does not fall into that category, and would thus not be prohibited by the act. Thirdly, even if it was, if you owned a small guest house in Vancouver, you would not need to advertise "Thinking of coming to the Olympics in 2010" - you would more than likely be able to rent out the house in that time period. I don't even see a need to mention the event in that context - those shoping around will know.

      The act is written to narrowly interpret a broad spectrum of words. By that I mean, the courts are allowed to consider many words that could potentially be infringing, but those words must be used in a misleading manor in order to be prohibited.

      All in all, it's one of the better balancing acts my government has done in order to prohibit ambush marketing, and I aplaud it. So, your argument doesn't really hold water with me.

  2. Re:As usual, no one ever bothered to read the bill by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The law essentially says you cannot mislead the public with advertising or promotions that suggest your business is endorsed by or connected to the Olympic Games and/or one of the organizing committess. Correct. But why the hell do they need to make a special case law for the Olympics. Wouldn't it make sense to make a general law that prohibits false claims of sponsorhip or affiliation? I smell a rat here.

    That's pretty much it. Draconian? Not really. Overly broad? Perhaps. Try overly narrow. The law should prohibit false claims of affiliation in general, and not make a special case out of the Olympics. Do not mention any words, but mention intent.


    If a business falsely claims to have sponsored an event or organization, give that organization the right to sue said business.


    If a business claims to have sponsored a non-existing organization, give consumer associations the right to sue.