Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm very pleased to be here today to begin the examination of Bill C-47, Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act.
The legislation is being proposed for two main reasons: first, to follow through on a commitment to the International Olympic Committee, the IOC, during the bid phase of the 2010 Winter Games to adequately protect the Olympic and Paralympic brand, if the games were awarded to Vancouver; second, to enable the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, commonly and from now on called VANOC, to maximize the private sector participation necessary to make the games a financial success.
My remarks today will situate Bill C-47 in its larger context, explain the type of protection it offers, and compare it with the legislative approach taken in other countries that have hosted or will be hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
The 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver will have an enormous impact in Canada and around the world. Consider these numbers: 5,000 Olympic athletes and officials and 1,700 Paralympic athletes and officials. At least 80 participant countries in the Olympics. More than 40 participant countries in the Paralympics. We are expecting 10,000 members of the media and 3 billion television viewers.
These games will be an opportunity to showcase Canada to the world and will result in a significant sport, cultural, social and economic legacy for Canadians. To this end, the federal government has committed $552 million to deliver a successful 2010 Winter Games, including $290 million for sport and event venues. This financial commitment extends to federal essential services such as security, health and immigration, as well as border and meteorological services. It will include a Legacy Endowment Fund that will provide operational funding for 2010 Winter Games sporting venues and fund high-performance and amateur sport programming at those venues and elsewhere in Canada.
But the federal government's financial contribution is only one part of funding necessary to make these games a success. Increasingly, events of this magnitude are dependent on private sector support to be financially viable. Bill C-47 will provide the marketplace framework necessary for that support to flourish, while safeguarding legitimate business practices and non-commercial endeavours.
I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about the importance of corporate partners to the Olympic Games. Over the past decade, corporate participation has become a significant means of generating revenues for events of all kinds, be they local, regional, national, or international in scope. Businesses sign on as partners because they support the event's goals. They sign on because they recognize the value of being associated with an event, in terms of their own image and the potential impact on sales.
The foremost example of the value and importance of corporate partnership is the Olympics. The global audience attracted to the Olympic Games and increasingly to the Paralympics is of obvious interest to companies that want to reach current and potential customers.
The Olympic movement has developed a sophisticated approach to working with those companies. The IOC and national bodies such as the COC, the Canadian Olympic Committee, work closely with companies and organizations that want to become partners of the Olympic Games and national teams, and that want to use Olympic symbols of various kinds in corporate marketing and communications.
Companies compete to earn the right to be official partners in particular product categories for the entire Olympic movement, for a national Olympic body and for specific games. Companies compete to receive licences that allow them to put Olympic symbols and marks on products. They compete for the right to produce items with Olympic themes, for something as simple as a souvenir T-shirt, or as sophisticated as a marketing campaign focused around an entire product line.
These partnerships are now a critical part of the business plans for Olympic and Paralympic Games. In the case of the 2010 Winter Games, VANOC has projected that it will receive 40% of its revenues, or $725 million, from games-related partnerships and licensing agreements.
Now, I would like to take a few minutes to review some of the key measures in Bill C-47.
I should note at the outset that the current Trade-marks Act offers some protection now to Olympic organizers for Olympic symbols, logos, and words. However, the government is concerned that the Trade-marks Act may not fully address the legitimate needs of Olympic organizers in responding to threats to their intellectual property rights.
The government is likewise concerned that the current legal framework does not provide sufficient protection against so-called “ambush marketing”, an increasingly common phenomenon in which non-partner companies find ways to falsely associate their business with the games, in the public's mind.
The first thing that Bill C-47 does is identify what Olympic and Paralympic words, symbols, and other indicia it serves to protect. These can be found in schedules 1 and 2 of the bill.
The next thing it does is identify VANOC, the COC, and the CPC, the Canadian Paralympic Committee, as the entities authorized to exercise the rights and remedies associated with these marks, or to license those rights to their various corporate partners where appropriate.
Bill C-47 then sets out two main types of conduct that it would prohibit. The first such prohibition applies to the use of an Olympic or Paralympic mark in connection with a business, or a mark that is likely to be mistaken for one, without the consent of VANOC until 2010; and after that, for the marks found in schedule 1, consent would have to be given by the COC or the CPC.
The second such prohibition applies to the so-called ambush marketing behaviour I mentioned earlier. It prohibits non-partner companies from behaving in a manner that is likely to mislead the public into believing that they or their products or services are endorsed by, or otherwise commercially associated with, the games, VANOC, or the COC or CPC.
Beyond that, the bill sets out the various remedies available in the event these two prohibitions are not respected. For the most part, these are the same remedies available to rights holders under the Trade-marks Act, with one noteworthy exception, as I'm about to explain.
Trade-mark litigation is often lengthy and it can be very difficult to convince a court to put a stop to the allegedly infringing activity pending the outcome of the trial. Given the short duration of the Games, and the tremendous potential for economic harm during that period, it is important that speedy interim remedies be available to immediately stop this type of misconduct. Bill C-47 thus provides that a rights holder, namely VANOC, the COC/CPC or a corporate partner, may apply to the Court for an injunction against an alleged infringer, or ambush marketer, pending trial, without having to prove that it would suffer "irreparable harm" if the impugned activity continues. Having to prove "irreparable harm" is the single greatest obstacle in convincing a court to grant this type of remedy in ordinary trade-mark cases.
However, this is a time-limited exception which will expire the same year as the Olympic flame is extinguished in Vancouver.
So, under Bill C-47, when a person or company seeks to profit improperly from the 2010 Winter Games, the legal framework will be in place for VANOC to protect its rights—and the rights of its partners and licensees—quickly and effectively.
As l've explained, Bill C-47 gives the designated Olympic organizations the authority to protect the Olympic brand from unauthorized and illegitimate use. But this protection is neither overly broad nor oppressive.
Most importantly in this regard, it should be understood that Bill C-47 only applies in a commercial context. For example, the use of a protected Olympic or Paralympic mark is only prohibited when it is “in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise”. This “in connection with a business” phrase was taken from the Trade-marks Act and has been interpreted rather strictly by the courts. In order for the use of a mark to qualify as infringement under the act, its primary purpose must be commercially driven. The use of a mark as a tool to promote goods or services in the marketplace would be the obvious example.
This is important because some of the news coverage of Bill C-47 suggests that it could apply outside a commercial context, to stifle artistic works, or to prevent individuals from parodying the games. That is not the government's intent, as evidenced by the “in connection with a business” proviso and the inclusion of a “greater certainty” provision, which confirms that the use of an Olympic or Paralympic mark in a news report or for the purpose of criticism does not constitute infringement under the bill.
So if someone wants to create a piece of art for non-commercial purposes, to criticize the Olympic Games in a sketch, to publish an editorial cartoon, to make derogatory comments on a website or through a newspaper article, they can refer to an Olympic mark or include a representation of an Olympic logo, as they see fit.
In addition, the bill contains a grandfathering provision that prevents it from applying to anyone who began using a protected Olympic or Paralympic mark before March 2, 2007, the date of the bill's introduction in this House. As a result, persons or companies that were already using an Olympic or Paralympic mark in connection with a business will continue to be able to do so without fear of facing legal proceedings under the bill, provided the use in question relates to the same products or services or the same class of product or service as before.
Similarly, this bill contains a number of safeguards to protect the legitimate use of an Olympic or Paralympic mark in a business context. For example, a person may use such a mark in an address, in the geographical name of their place of business, or to the extent necessary to explain a good service to the public.
It also bears mentioning that Bill C-47 has a time-limited aspect to it. The special enforcement measures it confers lapse December 31, 2010, once the Games' year is over.
Finally it is important to note that VANOC has committed to use its intellectual property rights under the bill in a discipline, sensitive, fair and transparent manner. It will develop guidelines which describe the criteria and process VANOC will apply in determining what type of activities it considers problematic under the bill.
I will conclude my remarks with a brief comment on the international context of Bill C-47.
It is important to remember that Canada is not out of step with the international community with this proposed legislation. We are simply reflecting best practices established by other host countries of recent and upcoming Games.
Moreover, Canada already passed time-limited legislation similar to Bill C-47 for the 1976 Montreal Games, which enabled the organizing committee to act swiftly in the face of potential commercial misuse of the Olympic symbols.
That kind of legislation became the norm during the 1990s. The United States, Australia, Greece, and Italy have all strengthened the legal protection for Olympic-related intellectual property rights. Furthermore, the upcoming games in London and Beijing are already the subject of such protection under the national laws of those host countries.
As I said earlier, partnerships have become a fundamentally important source of revenue for major events, particularly international sporting events. And governments around the world have recognized the need to protect the IPRs of organizers in order to ensure that those events attract the necessary revenues from partners and licensees. The government believes Canada can and should do the same through Bill C-47.
Thank you for your attention, and I'm open to your questions.
