IPA states Olympic view

[Fiona]

Christopher Hackford Legal manager, Institute for Practitioners in Advertising

Bob Heussner's letter (Right step to prevent Games from overkill, page 24, 6 September) distorts the position of the IPA.

It is our view that the draft Olympic Bill takes protectionism for event holders too far.

It is not a case of businesses enriching themselves, but merely having the freedom of commercial expression.

The IPA is fully aware that the IOC and LOCOG have taken out options on the vast majority of poster sites in the vicinity of the arenas.

We support this, in the same way that we fully agree that no one other than sponsors may advertise in the arenas.

Like Mr Heussner, we do not want the vicinity of the arenas to be turned into 21st Century bazaars.

However, the intellectual property rights of the IOC and London 2012 are already protected by specific legislation and by trademark law in the UK, and will be even further protected by the provisions of the Olympic Bill.

Our concerns are that more-than-adequate existing protection will be extended by the Bill to exclude any advertiser (other than a sponsor) from using common words in certain combinations.

It is the IPA's view that it is unfair that a travel company using the phrase "Come to London in 2012" is automatically infringing the new association right.

By granting extremely wide prohibition not just for the Olympic motifs, but also for words associated with sporting themes, seasons and cities will only increase the costs of sponsorship (to the detriment of sponsors themselves).

This will only antagonise all those many other businesses which cannot ever be sponsors.

The IOC's attempt to register "2012" as a trademark across every category of goods and services throughout Europe is surely a case in point.

Where would such a registration leave diary manufacturers and the organisers of Euro 2012?

The IPA is meeting with the DCMS to discuss these issues further.

Media Week