Question Q210 National Group: Spain Title: The Protection of Major

Question Q210 National Group: Spain Title: The Protection of Major

Question Q210
National Group:
Spain
Title:
The Protection of Major Sports Events and associated
commercial activities through Trademarks and other
Intellectual Property Rights
Participants:
Mónica López
Jean B. Devaureix
David Peral
Xavier Fábrega
Irache Pereira
Carolina Pina
José Antonio Primo de Rivera
Iñigo Elósegui
Isidro Egea
Gerardo de Lucas
Joan Salvá
Alejandro Sanz Bermell
Josep Mª Oyonate Melo
Luis H. de Larramendi
Date:
28 February 2009
I)
Analysis of the current legislation and case law
The Groups are invited to answer the following questions under their national laws:
1.
Does your national law provide specific protection for trademarks or other
designations relating to Major Sports Events?
No. Protection of trademarks and other designations which relate to Major Sports
Events is not expressly regulated in Spain.
However, the General Sports Act does expressly provide for protection of the
distinctive signs of the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
"1. Commercial or non-commercial exploitation or use of the five
interlocking ring emblem, the names Olympic Games, Olympics, and
Olympic Committee, and all other signs or identifiers which on account of
their resemblance are liable to be confusable therewith, shall be reserved
exclusively for the Spanish Olympic Committee.
2. No public or private legal person shall use the said emblems and names
without the express consent of the Spanish Olympic Committee.
3. Commercial or non-commercial exploitation or use of the emblems or
symbols, the names Paralympic Games, Paralympics, and Paralympic
Committee, and all other signs or identifiers which on account of their
resemblance are liable to be confusable therewith, shall be reserved
exclusively for the Spanish Paralympic Committee. No public or private
legal person shall use the said emblems and names without the express
consent of the Spanish Paralympic Committee.
1
The aforesaid Article thus reserves use of the Olympic symbols for the Spanish
Olympic Committee and bans all third parties from using them without the express
consent of the said Committee. These conditions apply equally to the symbols of the
Paralympics.
Lastly, it should be noted that Spain has not ratified the Nairobi Treaty on the
Protection of the Olympic Symbol, adopted at Nairobi on September 26, 1981.
2.
If so, please explain whether - and in the affirmative in what way – the following
trademark law requirements differentiate from the corresponding requirements in
general rules of trademark law:
a)
b)
Requirement of distinctiveness
Use requirement
Not applicable.
3. Also, please explain whether – and in the affirmative in what way – the
following differentiate from the general rules of trademark law:
a)
Is the scope of protection of trademarks which relate to Major Sports
Events narrowed or extended compared to the scope of protection of other
trademarks?
No.
b)
Does use as a mark constitute a precondition for infringement of
trademarks which relate to Major Sports Events or is the requirement of use as
a mark not applied in relation to infringement of those trademarks?
No. However, an owner must demonstrate use of the trademark concerned in order
to be able to petition for interlocutory relief on grounds of trademark infringement.
This ensues from Article 133 of the Patent Act, applicable to trademarks pursuant to
the First Additional Provision of the Trademark Act.
c)
Is the protection period for trademarks which relate to Major Sports
Events the same as the protection period for other trademarks?
Yes.
d)
Is the determination of third party traders' legitimate interest in fair use
different for trademarks which relate to a Major Sports Event than for other
trademarks?
No.
4. Does your national law provide for a specific registration procedure for
trademarks relating to Major Sports Events?
No.
5. What are the possible remedies in respect of infringements of trademarks
relating to Major Sports Events? Do they differ from the remedies applicable to
other trademark infringements?
2
Spanish law makes no provision for specific measures in respect of infringement of
trademarks relating to Major Sports Events, hence the general provisions of Article 40
of the Trademark Act apply. This Article stipulates that owners whose trademark
rights have been infringed may seek remedy by means of civil or criminal
proceedings.
(i)
Criminal proceedings
The criminal actions available to trademark owners are laid down in the
Criminal Code.
Article 274 of the Criminal Code prescribes penalties of confinement in prison
for a term of from six months to two years and a fine of from 12 to 24 months
for whoever, for industrial or commercial purposes, duplicates, imitates, alters,
or otherwise uses a distinctive sign identical or confusingly similar to an
industrial property right registered pursuant to the provisions of trademark
legislation, in the knowledge of the existence of that registration and without
the consent of the owner, on the same or similar goods, services, activities, or
establishments for which the said industrial property right has been registered.
Similarly, whoever deliberately imports the said goods without the consent of
the owner shall be liable to the same penalties, regardless of whether the
source of the said goods is lawful or unlawful in the country of origin.
Nevertheless, importing the said goods from a Member State of the European
Union shall not be punishable where the goods have been acquired directly
from the right holder in the said State, or with his consent.
(ii)
Civil proceedings
Article 34.2 of the Trademark Act lays down the requirements enabling
trademark owners to take civil action, namely, unauthorized use of the mark
by a third party fulfilling one of the three conditions listed below:
i. The sign used by the third party is identical to the registered trademark
and is used on identical goods or services; or
ii. The sign used by the third party is identical or similar to the registered
trademark and is used on goods or services where a likelihood of
confusion on the part of the public arises; or
iii. The sign used by the third party is identical or similar to the registered
trademark and is used on different goods or services, provided that the
trademark is well known or reputed in Spain.
Where any of these conditions is fulfilled, proceedings may be brought
petitioning for cessation, damages, destruction or forfeiture for humanitarian
ends of the infringing goods in the possession of the infringer, and/or
publication of the judgment1.
Application for interlocutory relief may also be made.
6. What are the possibilities under your national law of reacting against
nonofficial sponsors' use or registration of trademarks which take place before
a Major Sports Event and which relate to the Major Sports Event?
1
Article 41 of the Trademark Act.
3
In cases of this sort, the provisions of Article 51.1.b) of the Trademark Act could be
applicable. This Article provides that a mark may be declared invalid by the courts
and registration cancelled where the applicant has acted in bad faith on filing
application. This situation could be deemed to arise where nonofficial sponsors of a
Sports Event seek to register trademarks relating to that event.
In addition, such conduct could be deemed to constitute an unfair act of
misappropriating another's reputation pursuant to the provisions of Article 12 of the
Unfair Competition Act, Act No. 3/1991 of 10 January 1991, which holds that it is
unfair to "misappropriate, for the benefit of oneself or a third party, the advantages
attaching to the industrial, commercial, or professional reputation acquired by another
party in the marketplace."
Imitation that misappropriates another party's reputation and/or efforts may also be
deemed to be an act of unfair competition under Article 11 of the Unfair Competition
Act.
7. Does your national law provide for protection against Ambush Marketing? In
the affirmative, is such protection set out in the law protecting trademark
rights, in the laws against unfair competition, or both?
Spain has no express legislation against Ambush Marketing, and the courts have not
yet issued any case law. Furthermore, unlike the situation in other countries, there is
no settled opinion by legal scholars against this practice.
The only decision on the subject to date is one by the Board of Oversight of the SelfRegulatory Communications Trade Association in the Burger King matter issued on 8
June 1998. Decisions by this body are not binding, but in practice guidelines laid
down by the Board are ordinarily followed by the Spanish courts.
A complaint was lodged against Burger King by ISL Marketing AG in response to a
promotional campaign tied in the 1998 Football World Cup in France. ISL Marketing
AG complained about promotional gift vouchers to attend a match at the 1998 World
Cup in France, claiming that it misappropriated another party's reputation. The Board
of Oversight found in favour of Burger King, ruling that the company had only made a
generic reference to the 1998 World Cup in France and had not used any third-party
marks. The Board also held that exclusive rights in the phrase itself had not been
proven and that the World Cup in France could not be monopolized.
The decision shows that it will be hard to establish a link between an infringer and an
event, and thus misappropriation of another party's reputation, as long as there is no
reproduction of third-party trademarks.
Still, the general legislation would, in principle, afford protection against Ambush
Marketing in Spain under the Trademark Act, the Advertising Act, the Unfair
Competition Act, and the ".ES" Domain Name Regulation.
(i)
Trademark Act
As already mentioned above, unauthorized use of registered trademarks relating
to Sports Events constitutes infringement under the Trademark Act. The main
problem attaching to Ambush Marketing under the terms of the Trademark Act is
that most business practices employed in Ambush Marketing do not make use of
the trademark registered by the organizers of Sports Events, making it extremely
difficult for trademark legislation to furnish adequate legal protection.
4
Therefore, in the vast majority of cases, the protection afforded by the Trademark
Act is not sufficient to protect the official organizers of Sports Events, and a
change in the law to confer greater protection to the official sponsors of Major
Sports Events would be desirable.
(ii)
General Advertising Act
The General Advertising Act could provide a basis for addressing the problem of
Ambush Marketing as unfair advertising. The Act defines advertising which "gives
rise to confusion with the companies, activities, products, names, trademarks, or
other distinctive signs of competitors or which makes unwarranted use of the
names, acronyms, trademarks, or distinctive signs of other companies or
institutions, and which, more generally, is contrary to accepted standards of
conduct and good business practices" as unfair.
Stopping such conduct will require proving, in each individual instance, that the
advertising carried out is unfair, and more specifically, that the advertising is
contrary to accepted standards of conduct and good business practices. There is
no case law construing the meaning of these phrases, and hence there is no legal
certainty in this respect.
(iii)
Unfair Competition Act
In certain cases the Unfair Competition Act may also be used to combat Ambush
Marketing. The Act defines misappropriating another's reputation without proper
consent as unfair, and certain Ambush Marketing practices could fall in this
category.
Thus, "conduct which is capable of creating confusion with the business, services
or establishment of another" is deemed to be unfair. "The risk of association by
consumers in relation to the origin of the service shall be sufficient to establish
the unfair nature of a practice." In addition, "misappropriating ... the advantages
attaching to the commercial or professional reputation acquired by another party
in the marketplace" is likewise deemed to be unfair.
To prove a "risk of association" under the Unfair Competition Act requires
demonstrating that the advertising gives rise to confusion by way of association,
that is, that consumers realize that the event organizer and the company doing
the advertising are different but mistakenly assume that the companies offering
the services have financial, business, or organizational ties (
This definition encompasses certain Ambush Marketing practices, such as
advertising referring generically to the Sports Event, but in principle certain other
practices, such as giving away promotional caps or t-shirts at the entrance to the
Event, fall outside its scope, because of the difficulty in demonstrating an
association between the companies.
To prove "misappropriation of another's reputation" requires demonstrating, first,
the well-known character and prestige acquired by the Event in the marketplace;
second, the existence of some sort of tie between the advertiser's activities,
goods, services, or business establishment and the Sports Event; and finally,
third, the "improper" character of the appropriation. In this respect, not every act
that takes advantage of another's reputation constitutes an act of unfair
competition, only those which can be deemed to be improper on the basis of the
circumstance of the case as a whole.
5
Even though certain cases may come under the category of acts of
misappropriating another's reputation, where Ambush Advertising does not use
trademarks, as often happens, using this provision against acts of unfair
competition can be difficult.
Lastly, Ambush Marketing may be actionable on grounds of unfair competition
when it is "objectively contrary to the dictates of good faith".2 A practice is unfair
where it misappropriates, for its own benefit, the efforts expended by the event
organizer. However, in view of the general nature of the concept of "good faith",
each case must be assessed individually to ascertain whether the conditions that
will allow it to be deemed unfair are fulfilled.
8. Does your national law provide for specific trademark protection or protection
against unfair competition relating to other major events, such as film, art or
music festivals, World Expos and other similar events?
No.
II) Proposals for substantive harmonisation
The Groups are invited to put forward their proposals for adoption of uniform rules, and in
particular consider the following questions:
1.
Are particular rules on trademark protection desirable for trademarks or
signs which relate to Major Sports Events?
Yes.
In the affirmative, why is that the case?
Major Sports Events are the outcome of many special contributions and efforts by public and
private entities, each seeking after its own individual interests, which come together to
produce an event of worldwide import that has a major impact on society not only where they
are held but also in many, if not all, countries around the globe.
Their short duration, compared with the protracted nature of the preparations to hold them,
and the outsized economic investments required to put such Events on, are singular features
that warrant commensurate protection for the assets brought together to back the event,
namely, the set of trademarks under which the event is disseminated, promoted, and
advertised and those that become associated with it through sponsorship.
On the other hand, any measures adopted would represent exceptions to the general
legislation, and their exceptional nature needs to be minimized, so such measures should be
implemented only to regulate situations where protection for associated trademarks is lacking
or is insufficient and this risks preventing Major Sports Events from attaining the success
participating sponsors are entitled to expect.
Just as the Paris Convention laid down principles bearing expressly on what were the major
events of worldwide significance in relation to trademarks and inventions at the time the
Convention was adopted, namely, fairs and exhibitions, in theory there is no reason why
specific measures to protect the trademarks associated with Major Sports Events cannot now
be set up in the framework of today's social reality, which the law is meant to address.
2
Article 5 of the Unfair Competition Act: "Any conduct which is objectively contrary to the dictates of good faith
shall be considered unfair."
6
With this in mind, Major Sports Events can be seen to involve three different levels of
distinctive signs:
2.
-
The signs directly making up the image and name of the event itself;
-
Those which involve different terminology but which nonetheless
obviously relate expressly, specifically, and unequivocally to the
event; and
-
The signs of sponsors who, having secured the exclusive right to
have their marks associated with the event in question in respect of
certain activities or products, expect to obtain a return on their
investment without interference by third parties.
What would be desirable for trademarks and signs which relate to Major
Sports Events in respect of the registration of such trademarks?
a. Would it be reasonable to adopt a registration procedure which is
shorter than the general registration procedure?
The answer to this question should be based on the conditions occurring in
the jurisdiction of the national group making its report. In theory, there should
be guarantees, and hence the legal obligation, ensuring that prosecution of
these marks will not be prolonged until after the time frame of the Sports
Event, as this would be counter to effective protection.
In Spain, though, no measure to shorten the registration procedure is needed,
because as it is it is reasonably short, with decisions issuing in approximately
six months absent oppositions or objections, otherwise in about nine months.
On the other hand, trademarks under the European Community system are
also relevant, since besides extending to many other countries, they also have
effect in Spain, and it should be noted that prosecution up to registration can
be quite protracted, especially where oppositions are lodged, and that as a
result specific measures might be appropriate in this respect.
b. Would it be reasonable to change the classification system in respect of
registration of trademarks which relate to Major Sports Events?
This question would appear to be of lesser importance in the general scheme
of protection for Major Sports Events, and while obviously those promoting,
participating in, or sponsoring Sports Events could very well be interested in
protection for something on the order of: "all goods and services, of any kind
or nature, that might be the object of merchandising or economic exploitation
involving trademarks relating to Major Sports Events", it is our view that doing
this for a specific case would have a perhaps outsized distorting effect in the
framework of trademark law.
The Nice Classification, with all its failings, is nonetheless a useful tool for
classifying distinctive signs, and adding items that would cut across existing
international classes could undermine the Classification's role, to the detriment
of legal certainty.
It is thus our view that no changes are necessary and that the specific
protection afforded in relation to the organization of Major Sports Events in
Class 41 of the ninth edition (2007) of the Nice Classification in reference to
7
the goods/services listed below is sufficient in conjunction with coverage of the
marketing of goods and of the goods and services specifically included in
other classes. Class 41 includes the following services:
"Organization, arranging, and conducting of sports competitions,
contests, and sporting activities; providing sports facilities;
entertainment provided during or related to sports events; booking of
seats for sports events; sports and sports event information; televised
sports entertainment; production of radio and television sports
programmes; publication of sports books, newspapers, magazines, and
texts"
Furthermore, trademarks relating to Sports Events may be afforded expanded
protection extending beyond the principle of speciality of goods and services
on the basis of repute or a likelihood of association.
c. Would it be reasonable to adopt a narrowed requirement of
distinctiveness for trademarks which relate to Major Sports Events or
alternatively not to require distinctiveness at all?
Article 3 in the European Commission's White Paper on Sport of 11 July 2007
deals with the economic value of sports.
"A growing part of the economic value of sports is linked to intellectual
property rights. These rights relate to copyright, commercial
communications, trademarks, and image and media rights. In an
increasingly globalised and dynamic sector, the effective enforcement
of intellectual property rights around the world is becoming an essential
part of the health of the sport economy. It is also important that
recipients are guaranteed the possibility to have distance access to
sport events at cross-border level within the EU.
In addition, Articles 70 and 76 in the European Parliament's Resolution of 8
May 2008 on the White Paper on Sport provided that:
70. "Calls on the Commission and Member States to introduce
legislation and/or strengthen existing regulations and to attach
particular importance to respecting intellectual property rights relating
to commercial communications, trademarks and images, names, media
rights and any other spin-offs from the sporting events organisers are
running, so as to protect the professional sport economy …; points out
that … in particular, problems of ambush marketing, internet piracy and
unlawful sports betting should be addressed as a priority by Member
States and the Commission;
76. Asks the Commission and the Member States to further
strengthen Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the sport sector, and
demands concrete action which protects the IPR of sports event
organisers with regard to the results and the sporting event as a whole,
without prejudice to the freedom of the press;
This shows that Community institutions harbour special concern about
strengthening intellectual property rights relating to sports, and in particular
those relating to Major Sports Events deemed to be "of great interest to the
public" and to events deemed to be "of major importance for society, such as
8
the Olympic Games, the Football World Cup and the European Football
Championship" in Article 71 in the European Parliament's resolution of 8 May
2008. This concern can be fully shared.
Furthermore, the International Olympic Committee enjoins the country
organizing the event to enact specific legislation protecting industrial property
rights and sets out a series of guidelines to be followed.
Accordingly, for the forthcoming Olympic Games to be held in London in 2012,
Britain has enacted specific legislation dealing with the protection of
intellectual property holding certain word combinations to be presumptive
infringement of the trademarks for the London Olympic Games in 2012, for
instance, "games" "two thousand and twelve", or "2012" in conjunction with
other words like "summer", "sponsor", or "medals".
In this context of the social and economic importance of events of this kind
acknowledged by the European Commission and the European Parliament, as
indicated above, the trademark rights of the organizers of Major Sports
Events, and more specifically those for the name of the event itself, take on
special importance.
Trademarks protecting the names of Major Sports Events generally consist of
words making reference to the country and the geographic scope of the event
or the sport concerned, along with the year in which the event is held.
Accordingly, trademarks of this kind may be refused registration or invalidated
on grounds that they are devoid of distinctive character.
This has been the case for Community trademarks nos. 2152817 "WORLD
CUP 2006", 2153005 "GERMANY 2006", 2155521 "WM 2006", 2152635
"WORLD CUP GERMANY", and 2047843 "WORLD CUP 2006 GERMANY",
which were refused registration by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (OHIM) by decisions of the OHIM's Board of Appeal in proceedings
nos. R-1466/2205-1 to 1470/2205-1 on 20 and 30 June 2008, three of which
have recently been appealed by the applicants to the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities, where they are being heard as cases nos. T-445,
T-446, and T-448.
In addition, German courts (the BGH) have invalidated trademarks nos.
I ZB 96/05 "FUSSBALL WM 2006" and I ZB 97/05 "WM 2006" in respect of
certain goods and services.
By way of example, below is a transcription of a portion of paragraphs 46, 50,
and 51 of the Decision issued by the OHIM's Board of Appeal in proceedings
R 1469/2005-1 on 30 June 2008 relating to the Community trademark
WORLD CUP GERMANY.
46. "Therefore, the trade mark WORLD CUP GERMANY" is an
exclusively descriptive indication, within the meaning of article 7 (1) (c)
CTMR, for the goods and services claimed, which must remain
available for competitors.
50. …Therefore, the sole relevant factor here is whether the sign
applied for is understood as an indication of origin, i.e. as a sign which
ensures the identity of origin of the goods or services characterised.
However, this is not inherently the case, as explained before.
9
51. For this reason, the trade mark also cannot be registered because
of the ground for refusal under Article 7 (1) (b) CTMR."
Thus, the OHIM's decisions are based on the provisions of Articles 7.b) and
7.c) CTMR, i.e.:
"The following shall not be registered:
(b) trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character;
(c) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which
may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended
purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the
goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the
goods or service;"
This Article in the CTMR is substantially identical to the tenor of the Spanish
Trademark Act (Act No. 17/2001 of 7 December 2001):
"1. The following shall not be registered or, if registered, shall be liable
to be declared invalid:
(b) trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character;
(c) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which
may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended
purpose, value, geographical origin, or the time of production of the
goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the
goods or services;"
It follows that the current Community and Spanish legislation require a degree
of trademark distinctiveness and that marks that do not meet the requisite
degree either will not be entitled to registration or, if registered, may be
invalidated in the courts.
Although the name of the city where a Major Sports Event is to be held and
the year in which it is to be held might be thought to immediately acquire a
level of repute enabling these designations to obtain a degree of protection,
for purposes of legal certainty, and in view of the above discussion concerning
trends by lawmakers towards enhanced protection of intellectual property for
sports, particularly for trademarks relating to Major Sports Events, it would
seem reasonable to make provision for a lower distinctive character
requirement for marks of this kind with a view to furthering protection for
intellectual property rights along the path set out by the European Commission
and the European Parliament.
However, doing this would implicitly acknowledge these marks to be weak
from the standpoint of distinctive character, which could prevent owners from
being able to prevent third parties from taking unfair advantage of the prestige
and well-known character of trademarks used for Sports Events.
Spanish case law contains various judgments (e.g., the Supreme Court
judgments of 7 May 1997 and 6 July 2000) ruling that the owners of weakly
distinctive trademarks can only prevent third parties from reproducing their
marks exactly or quasi-exactly. For this reason, lowering the distinctive
character requirement for trademarks for Major Sports Events could be
10
counterproductive for trademark owners, and this is something that needs to
be considered.
Accordingly, another option might be to have no distinctive character
requirement whatsoever for trademarks relating to Major Sports Events. From
the standpoint of registration, this would reduce the grounds for objection,
enabling such trademarks to gain access to the Register more readily; and
from a substantive standpoint, it would remove the basis for invalidating these
trademarks on grounds that they are devoid of distinctive character. However,
this would alter the nature of registered trademarks, for which distinctive
character is an essential legal requirement, and hence this option should be
disregarded.
3.
What would be desirable for trademarks and signs which relate to Major
Sports Events in respect of the use requirement?
a. Would it be reasonable to adopt a use period of e.g. 8 or 10 years for
trademarks which relate to Major Sports Events?
The answer to this question is yes, because the point of protecting marks
relating to Major Sports Events is to furnish owners with an effective right, and
without a generous time period for commencing use, efficacy could be illusory.
It is entirely possible for trademarks of this kind to be registered eight to ten
years ahead of the date of a Major Sports Event, inasmuch as the time
elapsing from designation of a city as an event venue to when the event is
held is in that range, and protection would be nil if third parties could seek
revocation of trademarks after five years without genuine use.
Notwithstanding the above, where use is suspended, in the case of
trademarks relating to Major Sports Events there would not seem to be any
special reason for extending the uninterrupted time period of five years
generally established to keep trademarks from being vulnerable to revocation.
b. Would it be reasonable to apply a use period of e.g. 8 or 10 years if the
period from registration of the trademark to the actual event is shorter
than 8 or 10 years?
There would not seem to be any justification for setting the time period for use
to commence on a case by case basis, hence if the time period is extended
beyond the standard amount of time, e.g., to 8-10 years as just mentioned
above, it would seem logical for this period to be applicable in all cases, even
where a Major Sports Event is to be held sooner than that.
One solution that would cover both cases could be to allow these marks,
instead, a clearly defined exemption from the obligation to commence use, for
instance, "the period extending from registration to the time when the Major
Sports Event concerned is held".
4.
What would be desirable for trademarks and signs which relate to Major Sports
Events in respect of the scope of protection? Would it be reasonable to give
trademarks which relate to Major Sports Events a broader scope of protection than the
scope of protection given to other trademarks, and in particular in relation to other
trademarks which have a low degree of distinctiveness?
11
Trademarks relating to Major Sports Events are not highly distinctive per se, particularly
marks that comprise just the name of the host country or city and the event date (e.g.,
SOUTH AFRICA 2010, LONDON 2012), and for this reason a lower distinctive character
requirement has been advocated for registration of these marks.
Since Major Sports Events are extremely popular and generate large revenues for the
city/country where they are held, and since organizing these events is to a large extent
dependent on monies invested by official sponsors who, in return, expect to have the
exclusive right to associate their name with the event, as soon as it is known that a Major
Sports Event is going to be held in a given country/city on a given date, many economic
operators might try to use the mark in question to secure rights through use or might try to
secure exclusive rights by registering it, because of the high profits they expect to derive
from associating their company with the name of the event, even though they have not
helped organize it and are not sponsors.
To keep unauthorized economic operators from using marks identical or similar to the event
name to promote their goods or services, trademarks relating to Major Sports Events need to
be accorded broader protection than that accorded to trademarks having a normal degree of
distinctive character.
Trademarks relating to Major Sports Events should therefore protect the organizers and
official sponsors not only against registration and/or use of identical or similar marks but also
against registration and/or use of marks which combine the name of the host venue and
event date in order to associate themselves to the event without entitlement and may
mislead consumers into believing that the trademark owners are official sponsors of the
event.
In any case, expanded scope of protection should be applied proportionately, so that the
economic and social benefits deriving from the event will not be prevented from also
reaching other enterprises operating in the host city/country that want to make reference to
the event in good faith.
5.
What would be desirable for trademarks and signs which relate to Major Sports
Events in respect of infringements of those trademarks?
a. Should the requirement of use as a mark as a precondition
for trademark infringement apply to alleged infringements
of trademarks which relate to Major Sports Events or
should it be possible to infringe such trademarks even
when the use in question can not be characterised as use
as a mark? Why is that the case?
Use as a trademark should not be a precondition, or at least a sine qua non
condition, for trademark infringement of the mark. Other factors should also be
taken into account, for instance, the commercial (for profit) or non-profit (as a
symbol of affiliation) nature of use by the alleged infringer and whether or not
there is a competitive relationship between the parties.
Indeed, we should not lose sight of the fact that there is a very high risk of
misappropriation of the economic returns generated by an event and of the
investments made by sponsors without actually using a sign as a trademark,
and such conduct may be unlawful.
In any case, use in Spain would be in breach of the provisions of Article
34.2.c) of the Trademark Act where use occurs in trade, irrespective of
whether or not such use is in the form of a trademark, and such use involves
12
taking unfair advantage of, or could be detrimental to, the distinctive character
or repute of the registered mark.
b. Should the remedies available against infringements of
such trademarks be different from the remedies available
against infringements of other trademarks? In the
affirmative: In the affirmative, why is that the case?
The ordinary remedies provided by Spanish legislation at any level, civil,
criminal, or administrative, are sufficient response to infringements of
trademarks of this kind; however, the amounts of damages awarded should be
properly assessed having in mind the sizeable investments made by
sponsors.
6.
Are specific measures protecting against Ambush Marketing relating to Major
Sports Events necessary or justified? In the affirmative, why is that the case and what
should the contents of such measures be?
On the premise that Ambush Marketing diminishes the economic potential of Major Sports
Events and, taken to the extreme, could even detract from the economic viability of an event,
and bearing in mind that statute law – copyright law, trademark law, image rights law, unfair
competition law, advertising law – will never be able to anticipate all forms of objectionable
conduct, the answer is obviously yes. Clearly, apart from the coercive action itself, it would
exert an evident deterrent effect. The European Parliament already took this position in
Articles 70, 76, and 77 in its Resolution of 8 May 2008 on the White Paper on Sport.
However, to avoid infringing other fundamental rights, for instance, free enterprise and/or
free speech, specific measures should be enacted restrictively, regulating their material and
temporal scope and the types of measures enacted.
To ensure that the measures enacted will not be regarded by society as abusive and/or
excessive and thus will not have negative consequences on the event itself and on the event
sponsors, the scope of any such measures should be limited to civil and administrative
proceedings against the promoter, to the exclusion of any criminal liability. Thus, any
measure that may affect the public concerned will require broad information support, and the
organizer will have to be able to offer alternatives, to prevent a psychosocial backlash, i.e.,
disaffection with the sponsoring mark.
The most recent practical experience has shown that the enactment of specific ex ante
regulatory legislation, i.e., legislation that is general in scope in terms of economic policy but
limited in scope to the duration of a specific Sports Event, may be useful in helping to
enhance the uniformity of the uneven and diverse interpretations by the courts extant in the
national and international case law dealing with these matters and thus help guarantee the
exclusive association of official sponsors.
No measures should be enacted if they can be replaced by better rights management on the
part of the organizers. One example of this would be selling preferential rights to packages of
television advertising slots to sponsors to keep non-sponsors from advertising during
rebroadcasts of Major Sports Events and thus associating their brand with the Event,
especially serious in cases in which these advertising slots go to competing enterprises.
Other examples are direct management and/or supervision of ticket sales, centralized sales
of audiovisual rights, and direct, restrictive management of licensing of the event trademark
as a means of curbing unauthorized use. By way of examples, specific measures should
include:
13
a) Limiting unlawful associative marketing by expressly prohibiting the use or
registration of phrases and word combinations that make reference to the Event
and could be used evocatively.
b) Supervising advertising by the public during the Event to guarantee exclusive
rights while the Event lasts by strengthening already existing contractual terms
implicit in ticket sales – non-transferability, proportionality in the use of signs
evoking non-sponsoring trademarks, etc.
c) Supervising advertising by athletes and participants, prohibiting non-sponsoring
trademarks from sponsorship activities before and during the Event, or prohibiting
participation in or licensing rights in their image for messages of congratulations
on the results achieved. That is, by strengthening arena rights, defined as the
right of the organizer to negotiate, authorize, and prohibit affixation, broadcasting,
or rebroadcasting of sports event or show images.
d) Controlling visual communication in restricted geographical areas in the vicinity of
the host venues.
Nevertheless, the difficulty of balancing the implementation of measures such as those
referred to in items b) and c) above with other rights, some fundamental in nature, needs to
be borne in mind, since the resulting conflict between rights could be detrimental to the Event
the measures are intended to protect, for instance, where personal sponsorship agreements
of top athletes might even prevent them from taking part in the Event without breaching the
terms of their personal sponsorship agreements.
7.
Are other measures protecting against unfair competition relating to Major
Sports Events necessary? In the affirmative, why is that the case?
The protection conferred under the Unfair Competition Act and the Advertising Act in respect
of certain unfair conduct has already been set forth in section one above.
Still and all, because the conducts that ordinarily fall within the scope of what is known as
Ambush Marketing tend to be rather subtle, effective protection under either of these two
Acts or under trademark legislation would most likely not be possible in the majority of cases.
In the wake of the legislation that has already been implemented in other jurisdictions, like
the legislation for the Olympic Games in Beijing in 2008 and the laws passed for the
forthcoming London Olympics in 2012, it would be appropriate to draw up specific legislation
drawing on the experiences to be gleaned from comparative law, compiling the most
effective features of these laws, avoiding the features that proved to be most unpopular, and
seeking others designed to achieve the desired result, namely, to provide the greatest
possible protection for event organizers while at the same time respecting the rights of
everyone who has contributed or participated, even as volunteers and spectators, on a
personal basis or as journalists, in the Major Sports Event in question, without overlooking
residents and businesses at the host venue, whose taxes help make the event possible.
Doing this would implement a degree of specific protection against Ambush Marketing and
would appear to be more advisable than amending the Unfair Competition Act, whose most
relevant provisions, e.g., the general provision in Article 5 and the provision dealing with acts
of confusion in Article 6, could in any case be relied on for supplementary protection.
8.
Does your group have any other views or proposals for harmonisation in the
area?
14
The measures considered in this response to the questionnaire, namely, general
harmonization of the maximum duration of registration procedures, acceptance of a lower
degree of distinctiveness for trademarks relating to Major Sports Events, extension of the
period of non-use allowing the trademark to remain in force vis-à-vis possible revocation
actions, and adoption of specific measures when Major Sports Events are held, may be put
into effect nationally or internationally.
Similarly, specific legislation may be drawn up separately within each jurisdiction or may
follow special guidelines approximating protection to a certain extent and setting standards
that can be further refined with experience as we learn what does and does not work.
With a view to making legislation more uniform in an international context in which
communications are continually shrinking distances more and more, it could be a good idea
to adopt measures of this sort, as well as minimum standards for specific legislation, along
with the authority of the administrative bodies charged with applying such measures in the
framework of a World Intellectual Property Organization recommendation similar to the one
for protecting well-known and famous marks, naturally after due consideration by WIPO.
Finally, the proposed harmonization could perhaps address the possible advisability of giving
primacy to trademarks relating to Major Sports Events, particularly those marks that do not
comprise geographical or descriptive indications, such as mascot designs or names, both
with respect to entitlement to registration and to their efficacy vis-à-vis third parties in
disputes with earlier rights which, though they may have a certain resemblance, are not
intended to serve the higher purposes of Major Sports Events, which should be afforded
special protection. The Spanish group puts this suggestion forward on the basis of
experience gained from holding the Barcelona Olympic Games and attempts made by the
holders of earlier rights, perhaps acting out of expectations of possible economic gain (which
in many cases would constitute unjust enrichment), based on the resemblance of their earlier
marks to the mascot for the Games, the famous Cobi.
Summary
I)
Analysis of the current legislation and case law
The report of the Spanish Group reviews the applicable law, basically the General Sports
Act, the Trademark Act, including those provisions of the Patent Act incorporated into the
Trademark Act by reference, the Criminal Code, the Unfair Competition Act, and the General
Advertising Act.
The report likewise sets out some relevant case law and considerations on the absence of
specific legislation addressing Ambush Marketing, although some forms will come within the
scope of the provisions of unfair competition law.
The report notes that there is also no comparable protection for other major musical or
cultural events or such other events as international exhibitions or world fairs.
II)
The Spanish Group's opinion on the advisability of enacting the measures
set out in the guidelines and other additional measures
The measures considered in the Spanish Group's response to the questionnaire, namely,
general harmonization of the maximum duration of registration procedures, acceptance of a
lower degree of distinctiveness for trademarks relating to Major Sports Events, extension of
the period of non-use allowing the trademark to remain in force vis-à-vis possible revocation
15
actions, and adoption of specific measures when Major Sports Events are held, could all be
put into effect either nationally or internationally.
Similarly, specific legislation may be drawn up separately within each jurisdiction or may
follow special guidelines approximating protection to a certain extent and setting standards
that can be further refined with experience showing what does and does not work.
With a view to making legislation more uniform in an international context in which
communications are continually shrinking distances more and more, it could be a good idea
to adopt measures of this sort, as well as minimum standards for specific legislation, along
with the authority of the administrative bodies charged with applying such measures in the
framework of a World Intellectual Property Organization recommendation similar to the one
for protecting well-known and famous marks, naturally after due consideration by WIPO.
Finally, the proposed harmonization could perhaps address the possible advisability of giving
primacy to trademarks relating to Major Sports Events, particularly those marks that do not
comprise geographical or descriptive indications, such as mascot designs or names, both
with respect to entitlement to registration and to their efficacy vis-à-vis third parties in
disputes with earlier rights which, though they may have a certain resemblance, are not
intended to serve the higher purposes of Major Sports Events, which should be afforded
special protection. The Spanish group has put this suggestion forward on the basis of
experience gained from holding the Barcelona Olympic Games and attempts made by the
holders of earlier rights, perhaps acting out of expectations of possible economic gain (which
in many cases would constitute unjust enrichment), based on the resemblance of their earlier
marks to the mascot for the Games, the famous Cobi.
Sumario
I)
Análisis de la legislación actual y jurisprudencia
El informe del Grupo Español hace un repaso por la normativa aplicable, conformada
fundamentalmente por la Ley General del Deporte, las disposiciones de la Ley de Marcas,
incluyendo también aquellas de la Ley de Patentes en que hay remisión entre ambas, el
Código Penal, la Ley de Competencia Desleal y la Ley General de la Publicidad.
Igualmente se recogen algunos antecedentes jurisprudenciales y consideraciones acerca de
la inexistencia de legislación específica frente al ambus marketing, aún cuando alguna de
sus expresiones puedan quedar incluídas dentro las prohibiciones relativas a la competencia
desleal.
Se señala igualmente que no hay protección equiparable para otros grandes
acontecimientos musicales, culturales o de otra índole, como las exposiciones mundiales o
internacionales.
II)
El Grupo Español se pronuncia acerca de la conveniencia de que se adopten
algunas de las medidas que se sugieren en las Directrices de Trabajo, asi como
otras adicionales.
Las medidas que se postulan por el Grupo Español a lo largo de la contestación del
cuestionario, a saber: La armonización general en relación con la duración máxima del
procedimiento de registro, otorgamiento de un grado de distintividad reducida a las marcas
relacionadas con los grandes acontecimientos deportivos, la extensión del plazo de no uso
de la marca a efectos de mantenimiento en vigor de la misma frente a acciones de
16
caducidad, y la adopción de una normativa específica cuando tenga lugar un gran
acontecimiento deportivo, son medidas todas ellas que pueden en articularse a nivel
nacional o internacional.
Del mismo modo, la legislación específica puede surgir de manera independiente dentro de
cada jurisdicción, o adaptarse o seguir algunos patrones específicos, que de alguna manera
supongan una armonización a la protección, y que fijen estándares que puedan ser
mejorados conforme la experiencia sucesiva acredite o no su eficacia.
Probablemente para que resulte más armónica esa normativa, en un contexto internacional
donde las comunicaciones estrechan cada vez más las distancias, pudiera ser bueno el
incorporar tales medidas, e incluso los estándares mínimos de la legislación específica, así
como las facultades de los órganos administrativos que hubieran de aplicarla, dentro de una
recomendación de la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual, previo naturalmente
estudio por la Organización, similar a las que han surgido en otros casos, por ejemplo en
relación con la protección de las marcas notorias y renombradas.
Por último, cabe mencionar la posibilidad de que esa armonización que se propone, incluya
la conveniencia de primar los signos distintivos relacionados con los grandes
acontecimientos deportivos, especialmente aquellos que no consisten en indicaciones de
carácter geográfico o indicativas, tales como por ejemplo los elementos gráficos o las
denominaciones de mascotas, tanto en lo que hace su acceso al registro, como su eficacia
frente a terceros, cuando puedan enfrentarse a derechos anteriores que, si bien puedan
guardan una cierta similitud, no tengan la vocación de servir a los altos fines del Gran
Acontecimiento Deportivo, cuya efectiva realización debe de protegerse de manera especial.
La experiencia de la celebración de los Juegos Olímpicos de Barcelona, y el intento de
titulares de derechos anteriores, quizás pensando en una potencialidad económica (que
sería en muchos casos por enriquecimiento sin causa) de su signo anterior, por su parecido
con la mascota de aquellos juegos –la famosa Cobi- , lleva al grupo español a formular esta
sugerencia.
Résumé
I)
Analyse de la législation actuelle et de la jurisprudence
Le rapport du Groupe Espagnol révise la règlementation applicable en ce cas, qui se
compose essentiellement de la Loi Générale du Sport, des dispositions de la Loi des
Marques, y compris celles de la Loi des Brevets dont elle fait mention, du Code Pénal, de la
Loi de Concurrence Déloyale et de la Loi Générale de la Publicité.
On y recueille également quelques antécédents jurisprudentiels et quelques considérations
sur l’absence d’une législation spécifique face à l’“Ambush Marketing“, bien que certaines de
ses formes puissent être comprises dans les interdictions relatives à la concurrence
déloyale.
On signale aussi qu’il n’y a pas de protection comparable pour d’autres grands évènements
musicaux, culturels ou d’autre type, comme les expositions universelles ou les foires
internationales.
II)
Le Groupe Espagnol se prononce sur la pertinence d’adopter quelques unes
des mesures suggérées dans les Directives de Travail, ainsi que d’autres
mesures.
17
Les mesures que préconise le Groupe Espagnol dans sa réponse au questionnaire, à savoir,
l’harmonisation générale quant à la durée maximum de la procédure d’enregistrement,
l’acceptation d’un degré inférieur de capacité distinctive pour les marques associées aux
Grands Evènements Sportifs, la prolongation du délai de non-usage permettant à la marque
de se maintenir en vigueur face à d’éventuelles actions en déchéance, et l’adoption d’une
réglementation spécifique lorsqu’un Grand Evénement Sportif aura lieu, sont toutes des
mesures qui peuvent s’articuler au niveau national ou international.
De même, la législation spécifique peut être rédigée de façon indépendante dans chaque
juridiction, ou bien suivre des patrons spécifiques qui d’une certaine façon apporteront une
harmonisation à la protection et fixeront des standards pouvant être améliorés par la suite en
fonction de l’efficacité ou pas que l’on aura expérimentée.
Afin de rendre cette réglementation plus uniforme dans un contexte international où les
communications écourtent chaque fois plus les distances, il serait probablement intéressant
d’incorporer de telles mesures ainsi que des standards minimes de législation spécifique,
avec la faculté des organes administratifs chargés de les appliquer, dans le cadre d’une
recommandation de l’Organisation Mondiale de la Propriété Intellectuelle semblable à celle,
par exemple, pour la protection des marques notoires et renommées, naturellement à la
suite d’une étude réalisée par ladite OMPI.
Enfin, il conviendrait peut-être dans ce projet d’harmonisation de donner un premier rang aux
marques associées aux Grands Evènements Sportifs, tout particulièrement à celles qui ne
consistent pas en des indications géographiques ni descriptives, comme par exemple les
dessins ou noms de mascottes, autant en ce qui concerne leur accès à l’enregistrement que
leur efficacité lorsqu’elles peuvent se heurter à des droits antérieurs de tiers qui, bien qu’ils
puissent présenter une certaine ressemblance, n’ont pas la vocation de servir aux buts plus
élevés des Grands Evènements Sportifs, lesquels doivent faire l’objet d’une protection
spéciale. Le Groupe Espagnol a fait cette suggestion à la suite de l’expérience acquise lors
des Jeux Olympiques de Barcelone avec les tentatives de titulaires de droits antérieurs de
tirer éventuellement un gain (il s’agirait dans de nombreux cas d’un enrichissement sans
cause) de leurs marques antérieures en raison de leur ressemblance avec la mascotte de
ces Jeux Olympiques, la fameuse Cobi.
Zusammenfassung
I)
Analyse der gegenwärtigen Gesetzgebung und Rechtssprechung
Der Bericht der Spanischen Gruppe enthält eine Übersicht über die anwendbaren
gesetzlichen Bestimmungen, die im wesentlichen die folgenden Gesetzestexte umfassen:
das allgemeine Sportgesetz, die Bestimmungen des Markengesetzes, einschließlich der
entsprechenden Bestimmungen und Verweise im Patentgesetz, das Strafgesetzbuch, das
Gesetz über den Unlauteren Wettbewerb und das Allgemeine Gesetz über die Werbung.
Weiterhin sind eine Reihe von Fällen aus der Rechtsprechung sowie Überlegungen
bezüglich
des
Fehlens
einer
spezifischen
Gesetzgebung
gegenüber
dem
“Ambushmarketing” enthalten, auch wenn einige seiner Formen unter die Verbote des
unlauteren Wettbewerb fallen können.
Weiterhin wird ausgeführt, daß kein gleichwertiger Schutz für andere bedeutende Musik-,
kulturelle oder andersartige Ereignisse besteht, wie z.B. Welt- oder internationale
Ausstellungen.
18
II) Die Spanische Gruppe vertritt die Ansicht, daß einige der Maßnahmen, die in den
Arbeitsrichtlinien vorgeschlagen werden, sowie einige andere Maßnahmen
ergriffen werden sollten.
Die durch die Spanische Gruppe im Rahmen des Fragebogens geforderten Maßnahmen,
nämlich: die allgemeine Harmonisierung im Zusammenhang mit der Höchstdauer des
Eintragungsverfahrens; die Zuweisung eines geringeren Unterscheidungsgrades von mit
großen Sportereignissen verbundenen Marken; die Verlängerung der
Benutzungsschonfrist einer Marke hinsichtlich der Inkrafthaltung dieser Marken
gegenüber Verfallsklagen; und die Verabschiedung spezifischer Bestimmungen für die
Veranstaltung bedeutender Sportereignisse; sind allesamt Maßnahmen, die auf nationaler
wie auf internationaler Ebene ergriffen werden können.
In gleicher Weise kann unabhängig davon innerhalb der einzelnen Rechtsprechungen
eine spezifische Gesetzgebung entstehen, oder es können spezifische Gesetzesmuster
angepaßt oder umgesetzt werden, die in gewisser Weise eine Harmonisierung des
Schutzes darstellen und Standards festlegen, die aufgrund der praktischen Erfahrungen
hinsichtlich ihrer Wirksamkeit später noch verbessert werden können.
Um diese Bestimmungen innerhalb eines internationalen Kontexts, in dem die
Kommunikationen bestehende Entfernungen immer mehr verkürzen, zu vereinheitlichen,
könnte es eine gute Idee sein, diese Maßnahmen und selbst die Mindeststandards der
spezifischen Gesetzgebung sowie die Befugnisse der für deren Anwendung
verantwortlichen Verwaltungsorgane - selbstverständlich nach Analyse durch die
Organisation, und zwar ähnlich wie in anderen Fällen wie z.B. im Zusammenhang mit
dem Schutz notorisch bekannter und berühmter Marken - in eine durch die
Weltorganisation für Geistiges Eigentum auszusprechende Empfehlung aufzunehmen.
Schließlich besteht noch die Möglichkeit, daß die vorgeschlagene Harmonisierung die
Empfehlung einschließen könnte, denjenigen Kennzeichen Vorrang einzuräumen, die mit
wichtigen Sportereignissen in Verbindung stehen, und hier insbesondere denjenigen
Kennzeichen, die keine geographischen oder beschreibenden Angaben enthalten, wie
z.B. im Falle von Bildbestandteilen oder den Bezeichnungen von Maskottchen, und zwar
was ihren Zugang zum jeweiligen Register wie auch ihre Wirksamkeit gegenüber Dritten
betrifft, insbesondere in den Fällen, in denen sie älteren Rechte gegenüberstehen, die
zwar eine gewisse Ähnlichkeit aufweisen, die jedoch nicht dazu bestimmt sind, den hohen
Zielen des wichtigen Sportereignisses zu dienen, dessen wirksame Durchführung in
besonderer Weise zu schützen ist. Die im Rahmen der Veranstaltung der Olympischen
Spiele von Barcelona gemachten Erfahrungen und der Versuch seitens der Inhaber
älterer Rechte, welche möglicherweise aufgrund der Ähnlichkeit ihrer älteren Zeichen mit
dem Maskottchen der genannten Spiele - dem berühmten Cobi - an deren wirtschaftliche
Verwertbarkeit dachten (die in vielen Fällen eine unberechtigte Bereicherung darstellen
würde) sind die Anlässe der Spanischen Gruppe für die Formulierung dieses Vorschlags.
RS/RS/::ODMA\PCDOCS\GD\791665\3
19