Just when you think you’ve got a handle on the breadth and depth of stupidity in politicians, some politicians will step forward with a bold new idea and surprise you:
With little fanfare, the Canadian government recently introduced legislation that breaks with conventional trademark law and would grant the Vancouver [Olympic] organizing committee rights to “winter” and a long list of other common words, among them: “gold,” “silver,” “medals,” “sponsor,” “games,” “21st,” “2010,” as well as the name of the host city itself. The legislation would also give the committee special enforcement powers.
…
The law would also allow the organizing committee, a private group, to act like a government agency when it comes to enforcement. That means it would be able to obtain a court injunction without proving that an infringement of its trademark for, say, “winter games,” has caused it “undue harm.”
When some U.S. legislators demanded that french fries and french toast be called “freedom fries” and “freedom toast” after France wouldn’t support the invasion of Iraq, I believed they were setting a record for stupidity that would stand the test of time. But it’s very competitive out there in the world of political stupidity. I’d say this is an Olympic-class example, but I can’t afford the lawsuit.
David Hurst | 02-Apr-07 at 3:10 pm | Permalink
I think you are being a bit hard on the Canadian Government in this comment — or at very least premature. Heaven knows, I am not a great fan of the government, nor of the Conservative Party, but this law is
only in first reading, and may well be amended before it is adopted.*
Also, the paragraph you included tends to overstate the rights granted, and does not indicate the limits on them.
The Olympic Committees have no specific rights to these words. There are 2 sets of marks to which they do have rights: Schedule 1 has 39 marks that they have permanent rights to, such as “Olympic”, “Olympic Games”, and “Faster, Higher, Stronger” (and the French versions of these; Schedule 2 has 19 marks to which they have the rights for a limited period of time, such as “Vancouver 2010”, “Sea-to-Sky Games” (These expire Dec 31, 2010)**.
Schedule 3, the ‘common words’, is not words to which the Olympics has specific rights, but are words that the courts may use to decide if a business is trying to associate itself with the games.
The Schedule is split into 2 parts (each of which contains the words in both official languages. Part 1 contains 10 words: games, 2010, twenty-ten, 21st, twenty-first, XXIth, 10th, tenth, Xth, and medals. These words when used with other words in the schedule ‘shall be taken into account’ when deciding if an infringement has taken place. Part 2 contains the 7 words that are causing most of the problem: winter, gold, silver, bronze, sponsor, Vancouver, Whistler. These words can be considered only when used in conjunction with the words in part 1.
The section that deals with these words is as follows:
4. (1) No person shall, during any period prescribed by regulation, in association with a trade-mark or other mark, promote or otherwise direct public attention to their business, wares or services in a manner that misleads or is likely to
mislead the public into believing that
(a) the person’s business, wares or services are approved, authorized or endorsed by an organizing committee, the COC or the CPC;
or
(b) a business association exists between the person’s business and the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, an organizing committee, the COC or the CPC.
(2) In determining whether a person has
acted contrary to subsection (1), the court shall take into account any evidence that the person has used, in any language,
(a) a combination of expressions set out in Part 1 of Schedule 3; or
(b) the combination of an expression set out in Part 1 of Schedule 3 with an expression set out in Part 2 of that Schedule.
You can read the whole law online at http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2764652&Language=e&Mode=1
It is quite short and extremely straightforward (as laws go).
I would also note that the C ommittees can not have anything seized or take any action without going before a Federal Court, or the superior courts of one of the provinces. In other words a judge, not the Olympics, has the final word on whether the combination complained of actually is, in its context, an offence under this act.
Finally, I would note that use of ANY of the marks, not just these phrases, in “the publication or broadcasting of a news report” or “for the purposes of criticism relating to Olympic Games or Paralympic Games” is specifically exempted from this act. Since an offence must be “in connection with a business” and news and, most importantly, criticism is exempted, it is hard to see how this would seriously infringe on free speech.
I understand some of the objections that people have raised, but I think some are a bit overstated. This is common to civil rights advocates, and may be necessary in order to get attention so that the appropriate amendments may be made in committee, or the other readings the bill must undergo. As I said, I hold no brief for our current government, but I think that comparing it to the time ‘some U.S. legislators demanded that french fries and french toast be called “freedom fries†and “freedom toast†after France wouldn’t support the invasion of Iraq’ is unfair and implying it is worse is at best extremely hyperbolic.
A brief introduction to the procedure for passing a law in Canada can be found at http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&List=faq#proc
** The reason for setting the date in this way, allows this act to be used for future Games, by just amending the Schedules, rather than having to pass an new act from scratch.
Spink Nogales | 03-Apr-07 at 9:26 pm | Permalink
I think the curtain has been ‘pulled back’ for a very long time on the business of sports entertainment, but each time I read something like the response of Mr. Hurst to this post, I can feel the crust of my cynicism become a little bit harder. If no person ever takes a critical look at the machinations of the government, it is quite possible that someone of questionable motivation could usurp the will of the people. Wait… it already happened. Darn.
David Hurst | 03-Apr-07 at 10:53 pm | Permalink
You stated in your comment: “If no person ever takes a critical look at the machinations of the government, it is quite possible that someone of questionable motivation could usurp the will of the people.”
Nowhere did I suggest there should not be a “critical look at the machinations of the government”; quite the opposite. I said that I understood the objections but felt they were overstated, which is far from saying that no objections should be raised. I further stated that this overstatement “may be necessary in order to get attention so that the appropriate amendments may be made in committee, or the other readings the bill must undergo.”
It seems to me that your reply is as hyperbolic about my comments as the original post was about the bill.
Spink Nogales | 04-Apr-07 at 8:25 am | Permalink
If I, as an individual, were to begin legal explorations on the feasibility of acquiring the rights to some commonly used word, say for example ‘hyperbole’, and any of it’s derivations, then I would make myself the target of much ridicule. But when a government agency of a highly respected country may introduce laws to infringe on speech in the interest of protecting a $2.5 Billion investment, then it is certainly time to sound an alarm. The business of government should not be involved with sponsoring entertainment events.
When freedom can be amended to protect the profit margin of investors, how soon until we see Parliament, or Congress, brought to you by American Express, or Halliburton? (What? We have that already? ….darn.)