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.