Schedule 2 - Olympic symbol protection
London Olympics Bill
12:30 pm
Maria Miller (Basingstoke, Conservative)
The Minister clearly identified the need to provide a tighter definition of “association” in the amendment, and attempted to include a definition of it. I admit that that goes some way to help to clarify the Bill’s intention. However, the Bill still includes an automatic infringement with a presumption of guilt for the use of words that are loosely associated with the Olympics. We shall cover that more fully under the amendments that we have tabled to schedule 3, but it is worth pointing out that there is a need for more clarity. I am not sure whether this amendment is entirely consistent with other amendments to schedule 3.
I remain concerned that we could inadvertently stifle the economic and social benefits that could accrue from the Olympics, and I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention. I again stress the fact that we understand the need to protect sponsorship value, but there is a question of balance. My concern is that risk-averse organisations that perhaps do not have access to extensive legal advice to unpick some of the words in the amendment could be put off overtly supporting the games. We need a more transparent approach, which we shall introduce under schedule 3, and an approach more in line with the Sydney Olympic experience, which was successful in tackling ambush marketing.
Perhaps after we have had a little more time to consider the elements of the technical document we have been given today, the Minister may want to comment more fully on a couple of points that were raised about specific association rights. The document states:
“Legislation should provide for the protection of the Olympic permanent marks ... as well as for the ‘CITY + YEAR’”.
It is specific about what needs to be protected, and we should take that into consideration. The document also states that
“it is not the intention of the IOC to overreach and/or to prevent uses of marks, imagery or designations that have nothing to do with the Olympic Games.”
The IOC is giving us a bit of leeway to be more specific, and perhaps the amendment could better take account of that.