Successfully reported this slideshow.

Sports IP Update 2010

442 views

Published on

The development of the FAPL v YouTube litigation and some recent examples of ambush marketing based on Vancouver 2010 and South Africa 2010

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Sports IP Update 2010

  1. 1. C5 Sports Law & Business Conference Nick White Tel: 020 7611 9660 Email: [email_address] 20-22 Bedford Row London WC1R 4EB Tel: +44 (0) 20 7611 9660 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 9661 www.couchmansllp.com Couchmans LLP The Sports Business Lawyers
  2. 2. <ul><li>Part 1: Copyright: Update on The Football Association Premier League Limited, et. al. v. YouTube, Inc., et al. </li></ul><ul><li>Part 2: IP update re major events, brands and ambush marketing </li></ul>Trade Marks, Copyright and the Protection of Sports Rights
  3. 3. <ul><li>Viacom case </li></ul><ul><li>4 May 2007: Complaint lodged by Plaintiffs </li></ul><ul><li>8 July 2009: FAPL not entitled to recover statutory damages </li></ul><ul><li>Latest developments relate to §512(c) Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA): “safe harbor” for service providers </li></ul>Part 1: The Football Association Premier League Limited et. al. v. YouTube, Inc. et al.
  4. 4. <ul><li>Veoh case. Previous judgment on Safe Harbor </li></ul><ul><li>5 March 2010: Plaintiffs’ memo: No safe harbor because: </li></ul><ul><li>(i) knowledge and awareness of infringing content and </li></ul><ul><li>(ii) refusal to use tools to prevent infringing acts (from which they derive a benefit) </li></ul><ul><li>10 March 2010: YouTube memo in response: </li></ul><ul><li>(i) did not have knowledge or awareness of specific clips </li></ul><ul><li>(ii) has made tools available, has a legitimate business model and does not derive benefit from infringing acts. </li></ul>The Football Association Premier League Limited et. al. v. YouTube, Inc. et al.
  5. 5. Part 2: IP update re major events, brands and ambush marketing <ul><li>“ Taunt” marketing – marketing which makes fun of the ambush marketing laws and/or the authorities who enforce them </li></ul><ul><li>Standard “ambush” marketing </li></ul><ul><li>Some contractual considerations for sponsors </li></ul>
  6. 6. South Africa 2010: Kulula.com “ For the period during which an event is protected, no person may use a trade mark in relation to such event in a manner which is calculated to achieve publicity for that trade mark and thereby to derive special promotional benefit from the event, without the prior authority of the organiser of such event. ” (South Africa: Section 15A of the Merchandise Marks Act 17 of 1941, as amended)
  7. 7. Vancouver 2010: Lululemon “ We expected better sportsmanship from a local Canadian company than to produce a clothing line that attempts to profit from the Games but doesn’t support the Games or the success of the Canadian Olympic team ” (Bill Cooper, VANOC’s director of commercial rights management)
  8. 8. South Africa 2010: Pepsi
  9. 9. South Africa 2010: Walkers
  10. 10. <ul><li>Brand protection programme </li></ul><ul><li>- organiser to establish brand protection regime </li></ul><ul><li>- organiser to take legal action where necessary/desirable </li></ul><ul><li>- organiser to keep sponsor updated on progress (consider use of secure webpages or documents) </li></ul><ul><li>Other measures </li></ul><ul><li>- trade mark filings/management </li></ul><ul><li>- athlete contract clauses </li></ul><ul><li>- ticketing terms and conditions </li></ul><ul><li>- advertising space (commercial airtime, poster sites near venues) </li></ul>Sponsor Protection
  11. 11. C5 Sports Law & Business Conference Nick White Tel: 020 7611 9660 Email: [email_address] 20-22 Bedford Row London WC1R 4EB Tel: +44 (0) 20 7611 9660 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 9661 www.couchmansllp.com Couchmans LLP The Sports Business Lawyers

×