On Mar. 2, 2007 Bill C-47, the “Olympic and Paralympics Marks Act,” was introduced to the House of Commons by the Honourable Maxime Bernie, then Minister of Industry. The bill gave the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games (VANOC) sweeping powers to inhibit persons or entities from using the Olympic marks to profit by associating themselves with the 2010 Games unless otherwise authorized.

The bill, under section four, “Prohibited Acts,” refers to a “mark” as anything that directs the public’s attention to the person’s or entity’s products, by misleading the public into believing that the persons or entities are an approved and authorized sponsor of the Games. The bill was meant to be a legal shield that VANOC could use to protect the public and repel potential “ambush marketers.”

The conundrum is that some people view VANOC’s uses of the bill as an offensive weapon instead of a shield. In 2006 VANOC badgered a local, independently-owned pizza shop called “Olympia Pizza” because the store featured the Olympic rings and torch on a neon sign outside the restaurant. However, because the bill was not passed until 2007, the pizza shop was exempt from the bill.

Recently, Lululemon Athletica has come up against some heat from VANOC for its new clothing line advertised as the “Cool Sporting Event That Takes Place in British Columbia Between 2009 & 2011 Edition.”

Lululemon’s spokesman Eric Petersen said that the clothing is aimed at any of the sporting events in the 2009 to 2011 window, such as the World Junior Hockey Championships. Petersen also stated, “We would never do anything that we felt was ambush marketing.”

In a recent interview, Lindsay Meredith, who teaches marketing at Simon Fraser University, said, “You’re basically seeing businesses saying ‘screw you,’” adding that VANOC isn’t wrong to finger the various companies on their tactics. However, Meredith goes on to say, “VANOC set the stage for this kind of backlash way early on because they were way too aggressive… now they’re in a case where other [companies] are saying ‘we dare ya, go ahead, take a shot at us in court.’”

With sponsors contributing more than $756 million to the Olympic budget, Meredith maintains that “because of the negative PR [and that one] can’t effectively sue over the maple leaf, VANOC is having to keep its sponsors happy by publicly coming out and making a statement and that’s all they
can do.” 

The official start of the Olympics is just days away, and companies like Lululemon Athletica make it clear that they will adhere simply to the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law in their advertising campaigns. This begs a question of fairness: after the strategic investment of specific companies, isn’t it fair that others should benefit also?