[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18118-18119]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        OLYMPIC AMBUSH MARKETING

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, at the end of this week the men and women 
of the United States Olympic Team will march into the Olympic Stadium 
in Sydney, Australia for the XXVII Olympic games. These athletes who 
inspire all of us to set high goals and reach those goals deserve our 
congratulations and support. The American people also deserve praise 
and thanks for their individual contributions to our athletes and to 
the United States

[[Page 18119]]

Olympic Committee. Without those contributions, most of our athletes 
would never have the chance to compete.
  American companies have also financially supported the United States 
Olympic Committee and the Olympic games through official sponsorships. 
Unfortunately, Mr. President, that Olympic sponsorship is being eroded 
by an insidious practice known as ``ambush marketing''--advertising 
that falsely implies an official association with a particular event or 
organization. In no context is ambush marketing more prevalent or more 
damaging than with the Olympic games which, because of the reliance on 
private and corporate funding, are increasingly threatened by a decline 
in sponsorship interest.
  Internationally, it is fair to say that corporate sponsorship saved 
the Olympic movement. In 1976, Montreal was left with a debt of nearly 
one billion dollars following the summer Olympic games in that city. 
Los Angeles, however, managed to capitalize on corporate sponsorship, 
turning a profit and revitalizing international interest in the games.
  American companies have long been proud to be official sponsors of 
the Olympic games because of the humanitarian and inspirational values 
the games present. These companies also recognize the valuable 
marketing potential of the Olympics, enhancing their presence and 
business reputation in an increasingly global marketplace. By 
encouraging corporate involvement, Olympic organizers have ensured that 
such companies continue to devote tremendous financial and human 
resources to be identified as official Olympic sponsors. This 
sponsorship is particularly important in the United States, because 
there is no direct government support of our athletes.
  Congress has recognized the value of corporate sponsorship by 
adopting the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, which I authored, to 
authorize the International Olympic Committee to grant worldwide 
sponsors of the Olympic games exclusive rights to use certain emblems, 
trademarks, and designations in the advertising, promotion and sale of 
products in designated product categories. The act also provides 
enhanced trademark protections to prevent deceptive practices 
specifically involving the use of Olympic trademarks or trade names. As 
a consequence, numerous major corporations have become Olympic sponsors 
and have contributed millions of dollars to the games and to U.S. 
athletes.
  As the popularity of the Olympics has grown, so have the incentives 
to be associated with the games. Unfortunately, it is too easy for 
companies to imply an affiliation with the olympics, without becoming 
official sponsors. Such ambush or parasite marketing is often subtle--
frequently depicting olmypic sports, athletes, medals, the host city, a 
burning torch, or other olympic games indicia--but its effect is 
proven. Studies have concluded that ambush marketers have been quite 
successful in their efforts to mislead the American public.
  As companies begin to perceive only negligible goodwill or favorable 
publicity resulting from their Olympic sponsor status, their 
willingness to support the Olympic games and our athletes may wane. 
That is why I am considering legislation to further clarify the types 
of unauthorized use of Olympic games imagery and indicia that are 
actionable under the Amateur Sports Act. Australia, which will host the 
Olympic games in the next few weeks, has in place an ``Olympic Insignia 
Protection Act'' to protect against ambush marketing, and we may need 
additional protection in the U.S. Unfortunately, that legislation 
cannot be addressed this year.
  There is a vast difference between freedom of speech and deceptive 
advertising. I will ask the congress to authorize private suits, 
similar to private antitrust legislation, to allow those injured by 
``ambush marketing'' to recover their losses and financially punish 
those who try to mislead our people.
  The USOC has been aggressive in protecting its trademark interests. 
These additional tools may be needed, however, to ensure the value of 
Olympic sponsorships and encourage corporate participation in the 
Olympic movement.

                          ____________________