BEIRUT

Olympics

Logo police clamp down on brands to protect sponsors

Non-Olympic businesses cannot use images like the Olympic rings or terms like “London 2012.”

LONDON: A crackdown by “logo police” on brands being linked to the Olympics without official sponsorship rights is proving a challenge rather than hindrance for some companies who are relishing testing the limits.

Games organizers have enforced strict rules to protect official trademarks and stop ambush marketing but have been accused of “lunacy” for ordering shops to remove sausages, flowers and bagels shaped as the Olympic rings.

Within the Olympic Park, sushi boxes come without soy sauce or wasabi as the vendors are unable to find sachets that do not feature brand logos.

Some food stalls are selling chocolate, chewing gum and savory snacks from under the counter as they cannot display items not produced by key sponsors.

Outside the park, companies are coming up with novel ways to piggyback on the Games without running foul of a 2006 British law that tightened protection for Olympic sponsors and has the clout of fines of 20,000 pounds ($30,000).

A glasses company has teased organizers over poor eyesight after a flag blunder; an off-license offered discounts to people with items from non-Olympic sponsors; and a betting agency threatened legal action after being told to remove ads.

Rupert Pratt, managing director at sponsorship agency Generate, said the stunts could set a precedent for what brands can and cannot do to get around the Olympic rules.

“The Olympic movement does a fantastic job of scaremongering to protect its sponsors but the reality is that if you look at the ambushing rules there is a lot that can be done,” Pratt said after a day watching diving at the Olympic Park.

“So far LOCOG (the London Olympic organizer) is doing the smart thing by not getting dragged into a public battle with companies taunting it but this is testing the legislation.”

A group of 11 international companies sponsor the event, paying nearly $1 billion for the chance to have their brand associated with the Games and the Olympic rings over four years.

A further 700 million pounds has been paid by 42 domestic sponsors.

LOCOG argues a failure to protect the interests of sponsors would result in British taxpayers having to pick up the tab for staging the Games, beyond the 9.3 billion pounds already forked out for its infrastructure.

The logos of competitors are banned from Games venues, advertising is outlawed in “event zones” around the arenas and non-Olympic businesses cannot use images like the Olympic rings or terms like “London 2012.”

The rigorous enforcing of the laws by the “Olympics brand police,” a team of 250 lawyers and enforcement officers, has upset civil rights campaigners.

“As global attention turns to Britain, surely we should be showcasing the best of our democratic traditions – not adopting practices totally out of keeping with freedom and fairness,” said Sophie Farthing of the human rights group Liberty.

The testing of boundaries by certain companies has ensured the issue remains in the public debate.

Glasses company Specsavers used a diplomatic blunder by Olympic staff mixing up the North and South Korean flags at a football game to design an ad written partly in Korean and a strapline: “Should have gone to Specsavers.”

Oddbins, an off-license chain, launched a marketing campaign challenging the branding restrictions and urging other businesses to follow suit to highlight the “ridiculous rules.”

The off-license has offered 30 percent discount to customers with a list of items of non-Olympics sponsors such as Nike trainers, Vauxhall car keys, an RBS MasterCard, an iPhone, a bill from British Gas and a receipt for a Pepsi bought at KFC.

Bookmaker Paddy Power was told to remove posters advertising its official sponsorship of the “largest athletics event in London this year,” referring to an egg and spoon race in London in Savigny-sur-Seille, France.

 
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on August 01, 2012, on page 13.

Recommended

Related Articles

Entities

Advertisement

Comments

Your feedback is important to us!

We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.

Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.

Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)

comments powered by Disqus

Advertisement

FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE

Interested in knowing more about this story?

Click here