AND ISRAELI FOOTBALL POOLS
JURISDICTION REPORT: ISRAEL
THE MADRID PROTOCOL
Michael Factor
JMB, Fa©tor & Co
In a much-anticipated development, Israel is to accede to the Madrid Protocol on September 1, 2010. Tis will make it easier and cheaper for foreign entities to register marks in Israel.
Te Knesset amended the Trademark Ordinance to facilitate joining the Madrid Protocol back in 2007. However, implementation was held up due to problems with computerisation of the Trademark Examination Department and associated difficulties with meeting the tough deadlines.
UK football leagues sue Israel pools
Winner Toto runs the Israel national football pools and is entrusted with the management of sports betting in Israel. It is an organisation with a clear business orientation.
In recent months, Winner Toto has undergone a marketing revolution with the aim of repositioning itself as a major business player in the market. It makes a significant contribution to local communities by promoting recreational and sports activities, as well as improving the quality of life by using its proceeds to build public facilities such as school gyms, basketball courts, sports stadiums and swimming pools. Over the past decade, Winner Toto has placed about NIS 3 billion (more than $800 million) at the disposal of Israel sports.
Te Winner Toto website generates 8 percent of the company’s total income. Winner Toto, a member of the European Football Pool (EFP), has signed marketing and business agreements with local basketball and football managing bodies. Te purpose of the EFP is to promote sports activities in co-operation with the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). Winner Toto’s chief executive is a member of EFP’s Managing Committee.
Under legislation from 1967, Winner Toto has sole rights to organise sports betting in Israel. Te profits earned are dedicated to the advancement of local sports. Since there are not enough matches played locally throughout the year for Winner Toto to rely on local fixtures, it also selects fixtures from the English and Scottish leagues.
Football pools are big business. Trough their marketing subsidiary, the UK leagues sued the Israel Council for Organizing Gambling on Sports (Winner Toto) for revenues, claiming copyright infringement and unjust enrichment. Aſter losing in the Tel Aviv District Court, they appealed to the Israel Supreme Court.
On March 14, 2010, the Israel Supreme Court upheld the decision against the FA Premier League, the Football League, the Scottish Premier League, the Scottish Football League and Football DataCo. (their licensing
www.worldipreview.com
company). Te court ruled that since the fixtures were the result of a fairly simple algorithm and matches are presented in chronological order, with concurrent matches arranged alphabetically, the data is not copyright- protected because it lacks minimal creativity.
Having established that there is no copyright protection, the court went on to rule that there is no basis for a remedy under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Citing Justice Englard in the A.Sh.I.R. decision, the court held that in cases where there are no intellectual property rights, unjust enrichment is only applicable if there is a clear case of bad faith. Since, by law, Winner Toto has a monopoly, there are no grounds to see unfair competition. Tere is no competition. Tis negates the grounds for compensation under the Law of Unjust Enrichment.
However, there is a lack of logic in the court’s reasoning. Unlike the A.Sh.I.R. precedent, where grounds for compensation were found despite the plaintiff failing to register trademarks and designs, in this case, the football leagues were not negligent in registering their IP rights, since copyright does not require registration and the fixtures are also apparently not covered by copyright law. In such a scenario, there is unjust enrichment, since organisations such as Winner Toto free-ride on the leagues, which spend a fortune organising and promoting the matches.
Te fact raised by the defendants and upheld by the court—that Winner Toto increases interest in the UK league and, as a result, increases TV broadcasting revenue—is not relevant.
Dr. Michael Factor is partner at JMB, Fa©tor & Co. He can be contacted at:
mfactor@israel-patents.co.il
World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2010
59
“ THE COURT RULED THAT SINCE THE FIXTURES WERE THE RESULT OF A FAIRLY SIMPLE ALGORITHM AND MATCHES ARE PRESENTED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, WITH CONCURRENT MATCHES ARRANGED ALPHABETICALLY, THE DATA IS NOT COPYRIGHT-PROTECTED BECAUSE IT LACKS MINIMAL CREATIVITY”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80