Industry Committee on June 4th, 2007

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

We talked a little about ambush marketing. Could you give us an example that you've seen of this type of situation, regarding the Olympics, of ambush marketing?

[Bill Cooper]

I'm not sure that it's prudent for us to talk about specific examples, but I think I can come pretty close.

I think what you typically have is a situation in which a non-sponsor takes a series of expressions—let's take images of winter Olympic sports—that align closely with the Olympic movement but aren't specifically protected under a specific mark. These are very sophisticated markers. We have to take that into account; hence the need for such a complex piece of legislation. They'll take those, blend them together, perhaps put them on a product or on messaging around the product. Not only that, but the timing of their media buy and the placement of their media buy will factor in to make the combined experience confusing to the consumer.

There are any number of cases to some degree in Canada. More significantly, we saw around the Atlanta Olympics and recent FIFA World Cups any number of examples that you can see on intellectual property websites and sponsorship websites that sort of articulate and spell out the cases at hand. They all come down to that objective to basically fool the consumer by blending expressions.

I want to emphasize that when they blend those expressions, they are very intelligent marketers, and therefore they don't choose traditionally protected marks such as the rings or the torch. They invariably choose ones that are much more difficult to protect under traditional trademark and copyright. Hence, the growing need for anti-ambush legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

[John Furlong]

There was a case in Torino, in which a soft drink company decided at the eleventh hour to do something that was right in the line of sight of thousands of spectators, which created the illusion that it was in fact an only partner. It got shut down instantly. The test was what people thought when they saw it. It was clear what they were trying to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Madame Brunelle, please.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Furlong, please allow me to ask you a question about the recent past.

During the previous Parliament, I was the official languages critic. Last February, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages tabled a report entitled "Reflecting Canada's Linguistic Duality at the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games: A Golden Opportunity". I would like to quote an excerpt from it:

—there are still a number of challenges to ensuring the full and fair consideration of the two official languages at the 2010 Games. The Committee feels that concrete and immediate action must be taken to guarantee compliance with linguistic criteria in the selection of host cities, in the provision of adequate funding for French-language organizations in setting up projects for the 2010 Games, in the representation of French-language communities in VANOC and in the cultural celebrations associated with the Games, in the broadcasting of the Games to the entire English and French audience and regarding bilingual signage outside the host cities.

Where are you at with these recommendations? Have you made any progress. We know that language posed major problems for francophone athletes among others. It has always been very difficult. Have you made any headway with this?

[John Furlong]

Thank you for the question.

There are two things. First of all, it's our obligation. We are contracted to make sure that we are a fully bilingual organizing committee. The organizing committee has embraced the spirit of that rule, which is to promote these two languages through the power of the Olympic brand. We are attempting to do that. I would say today we are fully bilingual. Most everything we are doing is in both languages. The signage is in both languages. We're working hard to raise the watermark on our performance in that area, but more than that, we're trying to embrace the spirit of the official languages concept inside the organization. It's expected in Canada. We do have two languages.

I think today we feel that we're further along than we might have been, given that we are in Vancouver. We have, give or take, approximately 25% of employees who speak French today, which is a dramatically higher number than for most businesses in British Columbia. We're trying very hard to make sure that absolutely everything we do is delivered in both languages as well as we can. The signage today is in both languages, and we'll continue to do that. We'll continue to consult with francophone communities on how to do that better.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

We have a couple of minutes left, so I'm going to take the next Conservative spot—as long as the Conservatives don't object.

My understanding is that there was legislation passed for the games in Montreal but there was no legislation for the games in Calgary, and there were some problems.

The arguments here make logical sense to me, but can you explain it to Canadians? What is being protected by passing this legislation? Is it primarily T-shirts, hats, apparel? Is it other things? With regard to the words or the symbols in schedule 1, what is the stuff we're actually worried about by passing this legislation?

[John Furlong]

It's a good question, Mr. Chair.

The organization sells categories of sponsorship that cover a wide variety of areas. We've sold sponsorship to the top players--for example, telecommunications, banking, oil and gas, automobiles, home renovations, and so on. The first order of business for the organizing committee is to protect all the sponsors who have acquired rights to sell merchandise or services in a specific category, and then we have the licensees who have acquired the right to sell certain products.

They have committed extraordinary amounts. Today, for example, we have signed 23 contracts in the sponsorship area. Those 23 contracts represent the 23 largest commitments these companies have ever made under the banner of sponsorship in Canada. In every single case there has been a discussion about protection of their right to be the exclusive provider in that category. We have given those commitments. We're talking about commitments anywhere from $500,000 to $200 million. Number one, it's for specific categories and protecting their right to perform inside of that category.

The likelihood of us having to do a lot of what the member was saying would only come up if these words and marks on our products are used in connection with the Olympic Games. If they're used on their own, we have no interest in them; it's only as they are applied to the games.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

My question, Mr. Furlong, is what are they worried about? Are they worried about the selling of apparel? What is it? When you approach a company and they say they want their intellectual property rights protected, it's because they do not want someone doing what?

[John Furlong]

They're worried about another company creating the illusion that they are in fact an exclusive Olympic partner when they have not acquired that right. That's their worry. They believe that being an Olympic partner is profoundly important; it's quite powerful. They want to be seen as the companies that have supported Canada's games. They want to be known as the one in that category. They've all competed for that right.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

So for instance if a financial institution signs on as the official financial institution supporting the games, they do not want competing financial institutions—

[John Furlong]

Correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

So the apparel is much smaller in terms of the scope of the legislation?

[John Furlong]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. That's all we have.

I think that's all the time we have, as well.

I want to thank you for coming before us today. I think I can speak on behalf of the entire committee in wishing you the best of luck towards the 2010 Games, from an Olympic point of view, an athlete's point of view, and from a commercial point of view as well.

[John Furlong]

We appreciate it very much. Thank you for your support.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for coming.

The meeting is adjourned.