This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
JURISDICTION REPORT: ROMANIA


THE OLYMPIC GAMES AND TRADEMARK COMPETITION


Dragosh Marginean Ratza & Ratza


As we go to press we are nearing the start of the 2012 Summer Olympic Games in London. Te entire world is preparing for the sporting spectacle that will ensue, so we will take the time briefly to analyse the impact of the Games from a Romanian IP perspective.


Te success of the Olympic Games has made them a very attractive sponsorship opportunity. Tat success has also made them a target for infringers and ambush marketers alike.


Te International Olympic Committee (IOC) fought back by requesting all host countries to enter into an agreement regarding, among other things, the protection of IP rights and of the rights of the official sponsors. As far as the current Games are concerned, the obligations assumed by the UK government have been materialised in the London Olympic and Paralympic Games Act of 2006, which is widely considered the most comprehensive legislation of its kind.


However, infringements and ambush marketing issues are not confined to the territory of the host country, nor are they confined to the specific time period when the Games take place. In all these jurisdictions apart from the host country, the IOC will have to deal with this issue without the benefit of special legislation.


In the four years since the last Games, the IOC has faced various IP problems in Romania related to infringement and to ambush marketing.


Trademark infringements Various trademark applications containing the world ‘Olympic’ in different forms have been filed, such as ‘Olympic Hotel’, ‘Olympic Restaurant’ and ‘Olympic Center’, by Romanian applicants, and ‘Olympic Online’ and ‘Olympic Stem Xcells’ by foreign ones. In some cases the IOC was forced to fight such applications in multiple jurisdictions with various outcomes, especially as they were filed for a wide range of goods and services, some of them with no apparent connection to the main activities of the IOC, but clearly bound to dilute the distinctive character of its well-known Olympic trademarks.


As a result, the IOC consistently filed oppositions to the registration of all trademark applications similar to Olympic trademarks. Te oppositions were based on the conflict with IOC’s earlier rights, as well as on the well- known character of the Olympic trademarks.


In one of the first oppositions, back in 2008, the Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM) recognised the well-known character of the Olympics trademarks, and then confirmed it in later decisions, all in favour of the IOC.


www.worldipreview.com


“VARIOUS TRADEMARK APPLICATIONS CONTAINING THE WORLD ‘OLYMPIC’ IN DIFFERENT FORMS HAVE BEEN FILED, SUCH AS ‘OLYMPIC HOTEL’, ‘OLYMPIC RESTAURANT’ AND ‘OLYMPIC CENTER’, BY ROMANIAN APPLICANTS.”


Ambush marketing One case stands out in the last four years. Te soſt drinks producer Prigat, owned by Pepsico, during the last Olympic Games ran an advertising campaign named ‘Olimpiada Oamenilor Obisnuiti’ (the Regular People Olympics). Prigat, along with the advertising company 23 Communications Ideas, also sought trademark.


the registration of the name of the campaign as a


Te IOC filed an opposition before OSIM against the trademark applications and also filed an infringement action and sought an injunction before the courts of law. Te opposition was upheld by OSIM while the injunction was rejected by the courts of law.


Te infringement action is still pending with the parties currently debating procedural issues before the Supreme Court. Should these be resolved in favour of the plaintiffs IOC and the National Olympic Committee (NOC), the case will be sent to the court of first instance for a decision on the merits. Terefore it might take another four years before we will have a final decision in this case.


Although the track record before OSIM makes Romania one of the


jurisdictions where the IOC has been most successful in enforcing its trademark rights so far, the issue appears not to be as clear before the courts. Even if the IOC prevails in the court case, it might be too late as, with the failure of the injunction, they were not able to stop the campaign running its course during the 2008 Games. Victories before OSIM are clearly not sufficient—actually stopping the infringement proves to be a far more complicated venture.


Dragosh Marginean is a senior partner at Ratza & Ratza in Bucharest, Romania. He can be contacted at: dm@ratza-ratza.com


World Intellectual Property Review July/August 2012 69


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  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84