Evidence of meeting #65 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vanoc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
We can ask them that.
I just want to follow up on Mr. Byrne's concerns. Don't we have existing laws in place in the trademark laws to protect us from those types of scenarios?
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
In the Trade-marks Act there is currently trademark protection, but trademarks are always challengeable. My colleague here from the Intellectual Property Office is in a better position to respond, but briefly, they are always challengeable. So are the official marks challengeable on the basis of whether an organization or entity is a public authority or not.
What we wanted to do in this piece of legislation is to ensure that for a finite list of marks that are included in schedule 1 and 2 there is an unequivocal understanding that those marks are non-challengeable. But they are finite. It is not a long list. It is what other countries have done in the past and has already been done for the 2012 games. It goes beyond, but it is also necessary in order to meet the commitment so that sponsors are secure in their investment.
As for ambush marketing, there is no ambush marketing provision in the Trade-marks Act, so this is new. There is a passing off in the Trade-marks Act, but this is new. This is deemed as being a much more serious and growing problem in the Olympic Games.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.
We'll go now to Madame Brunelle, please.
June 4th, 2007 / 4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Good afternoon, ladies. Thank you for coming.
Essentially, this bill seeks to protect trade-marks. Actually, it has to do with the value and importance of partnerships. If I were a sponsor and if I had paid substantial sums of money, I would not want everyone to be allowed to use the same logos.
Moreover, you stated that 40% of the revenues, namely $725 million, come from partnerships. If Bill C-47 had not been tabled, have we any idea of what we could get in the way of partnerships? Is it really that crucial?
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
I have no figures; this is very hypothetical. I can neither confirm nor deny anything. Perhaps those in charge of the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, or VANOC, could tell you what kind of problems they would have if this bill were not passed. Obviously, they already have partnership agreements. The people working on the ground are the only ones who could tell you how many more partnerships they would have if the bill is passed.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Perhaps we can look at this in another way. Certainly, some partnerships have already been signed. Do the contracts promise legislation to protect trade-marks?
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
I cannot answer that question. Contracts are made between VANOC and certain partners like Bell Canada, that invested $290 million in this venture. You should put this question to them.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Very well.
You are asking us to pass this bill because the International Olympic Committee wants it. Am I right?
I understand that an interim injunction or an interlocutory injunction can be enforced more quickly, and I think that this is a legitimate measure. We need not wait for the games to be over before taking the merchandise off the market. How will this actually be done? Will we have a T-shirt police watching everyone?
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Generally, these are civil procedures. The owner of the right would have to investigate and determine whether or not there is an infringement.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
If a competitor has a similar product and uses the trade-mark.
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
That is what I mean. It is not up to the government to enforce the legislation.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Schedule 3 contains the expressions that are permitted, if I understand correctly. Are these the expressions that could be used?
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
No, Schedule 3 allows the court to determine whether the case involves ambush marketing by considering other relevant facts. It is a list of terms that the court could study or use to make that determination. The terms are not prohibited, they are terms that the court can take into consideration in various cases. If these terms are also used, they could lead the court to decide that there is a case of ambush marketing.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Now I understand more clearly. I saw the figures "2010" and "XXIst". People should be allowed to use them without getting sued.
4:30 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
There must also be a combination.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
It means that the terms must really be connected to the games.
4:30 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Exactly. This means that a single term is not sufficient, there must be a combination of terms.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Merci, Madame Brunelle.
We are at 4:30. I know members may have some more questions, but I believe Ms. Bincoletto and the three of you are back here tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. for clause-by-clause, which will go at least an hour and perhaps longer, depending on how many issues the members have.
We have the other witnesses here, so I am going to suspend and allow the other witnesses to come to the table.
I want to thank the three of you for coming in, for your answers, your presentation, and we will see you tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.
Members, we'll suspend for a minute or two.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Members, we call the meeting to order again for the second part of our study of Bill C-47.
We have with us for one hour the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. We have, first of all, Mr. John Furlong, the chief executive officer; secondly, Mr. Bill Cooper, who is the director of commercial rights management; and thirdly, Ms. Anita Chandan, who is the vice-president of Hunter Licensed Sports Distribution Corporation.
I believe, Mr. Furlong, you'll be making the opening statement and then you'll be open to questions from members.
4:35 p.m.
John Furlong Chief Executive Officer, Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games
Yes.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games
Roughly, yes. Is that okay?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative