Jan 6, 2016
COC loses fight over emails in ambush marketing battle
Rick Westhead looks at the latest in a legal battle that could have significant repercussions for the Canadian Olympic Committee's ability to raise sponsorship revenue.
A legal battle that has riveted Canadian Olympic sponsors across the country – one that could threaten the Canadian Olympic Committee’s ability to raise sponsorship revenue in future years – continues to move through B.C. Supreme Court.
The COC alleged in court documents on Dec. 2, 2014, that outerwear apparel company The North Face infringed on Olympic trademarks during the Sochi Games in Russia earlier that year when it sold its so-called Villagewear Collection.
"Villagewear" alluded to the Olympic Village where athletes are housed, the COC contended.
The North Face fired back, accusing the COC of trying to restrict Canadians' ability to express their national pride. Neither The North Face nor its parent company, VF Corp., is an Olympic sponsor.
“COC does not own and should not be permitted to claim monopoly rights over common patriotic exhortations such as 'Sport the colours of your home country’ or 'Show support for your favourite team competing in this winter's international competition,’” The North Face said.
The lawsuit highlights the ongoing battle by Olympics officials to stamp out the practice of “ambush marketing,” a term coined during the 1980s by the International Olympic Committee to describe companies trying to profit from a perceived tie to the Games without actually paying to be an official sponsor.
The COC has said 97 per cent of its funding to support the Canadian Olympic team is generated through the sale of corporate sponsorships. Some sponsors pay as much as $6-million per year to promote their ties to the Games.
In the latest development in the case, The North Face and COC battled over whether email correspondence between company and COC executives should be admitted as evidence in the case.
On Dec. 18, 2013, Erin Mathany, director of strategic partnerships with the COC, emailed a TNF Canada official saying that the COC had a “significant concern” about The North Face’s Villagewear Collection.
Mathany eventually was connected with Francois Goulet, general manager of TNF Canada, who wrote in a Dec. 20, 2013, email to Mathany that, “in the spirit of collaboration” the company would comply with some of the COC’s demands.
Goulet, now general manager of TNF’s U.S. subsidiary, wrote that he hoped compliance “is to your satisfaction and please understand that it is not our intention to undermine your efforts.”
Mathany later wrote to a lawyer with The North Face, “[w]e look forward to hearing from you at your earliest opportunity, and in any event, no later than January 6, 2014. As we will be speaking with our official sponsors and licensees regarding The North Face Villagewear Collection on Jan. 6, we would appreciate your response as soon as possible.”
A judge ruled on Dec. 24 that most of the emails introduced by the COC would not be allowed as evidence because they were part of settlement discussions.
The North Face marketed and released its line of Villagewear clothing in the weeks leading up to the Sochi Olympics. After the COC complained, the company renamed its line the International Collection. It includes ski and snowboard jackets, winter hats and duffel bags in the colours and flags of various countries. The Canadian-themed items are red and white and feature a prominent maple leaf.
Several items have a crest that reads "RU/14." The COC says that's a clear attempt to tie the product line to the Sochi Games.
The Olympic committee's lawsuit said items were marketed with names like "Men's Sochi Full Zip Hoodie." The product line "captures the international spirit of the Olympic Games," a company catalogue read.
Ann Krcik, a spokeswoman for The North Face, denied the company has done anything wrong with its product line.
“The North Face was proud to design and manufacture the U.S. Freeskiing Team uniforms and we have been a longtime supporter of the freeskiing movement around the world, but we were never an official sponsor of the Canadian Olympic Committee or Team Canada and we disagree that we did anything to suggest otherwise,” Krcik wrote in an emailed statement to TSN.
“We respect the intellectual property rights of third parties, including those of the Canadian Olympic Committee and disagree that we infringed any rights of the COC,” Krcik wrote. “We cannot otherwise comment on this pending litigation matter.”
COC spokeswoman Cherry Ye wrote in an emailed statement that, "Our commitment to vigorously defend our brand and to protect our partners and licensees against ambush marketing attempts continues. As the matter is before the court, we are declining further comment.”
The COC has routinely threatened non-sponsor companies with legal action if they suggest in their advertising that they have a tie to the Olympics.
In February 2014, the COC said it was considering “all of our options” to fight a campaign by Labatt Breweries of Canada, which the COC said misled Canadians into associating the company’s Budweiser brand with the Olympics.