As discussed in the previous article, ambush marketing is not, in itself, prohibited under laws such as the Trademark Act or the Fair Trade Act. Accordingly, while event organizers may seek the broadest possible protection under existing legal frameworks, some jurisdictions have also enacted dedicated legislation to address ambush marketing. At the same time, organizers of major sporting events have, in recent years, developed increasingly sophisticated management mechanisms tailored to different forms of ambush marketing.

With respect to non-official sponsors, organizers of major international sporting events typically establish a comprehensive intellectual property protection strategy well before the commencement of the event. In recent years, both the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”) have published official guidance, such as the “Olympic Properties” guidelines and the “FIFA World Cup 26 Intellectual Property Guidelines”, identifying the intellectual property associated with their respective events and emphasizing that such rights may not be used without license. These measures are intended to reduce the ability of non-official sponsors to free-ride on the commercial value of the events. In addition, some jurisdictions provide broader protection through specific legislation. For example, France's Sports Code extends protection beyond the Olympic symbol to include the terms “Olympic,” “Olympiad,” “Olympism,” the abbreviation “JO” (Jeux Olympiques), and even “combinations of a host city and year” associated with the Olympic Games. Such protection seeks to prevent non-official sponsors from exploiting identifiers that may not otherwise fall within the scope of conventional trademark protection.

With respect to athletes, IOC has established a management framework under Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter. Recognizing that athletes often depend on their own commercial sponsorship arrangements, which may involve companies that are not official Olympic sponsors, Rule 40 seeks to strike a balance between preserving the integrity of the Olympic sponsorship programme and respecting athletes' existing commercial relationships. The current version of Rule 40 adopts a more flexible approach, permitting athletes, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the IOC or their respective National Olympic Committees, to engage in limited commercial communications during the Olympic Games (for example, athletes may, to a limited extent, express gratitude to their own sponsors). However, Rule 40 continues to strictly prohibit athletes from enabling non-official sponsors to obtain publicity or promotional exposure comparable to that enjoyed by official sponsors.

Spectators also constitute an important focus of event management. For example, the ticket terms and conditions for the Paris 2024 Olympic Games expressly prohibited spectators from engaging in unauthorized commercial or promotional activities within competition venues and imposed restrictions on the commercial exploitation of photographs, video recordings, and audio recordings captured during the Games. Such contractual provisions serve as a preventative mechanism against potential ambush marketing.

The international measures described above also provide considerable reference value for Taiwan. Event organizers in Taiwan may draw on international practices to establish more comprehensive protection mechanisms. For example, at the early stages of event preparation, they may refer to the practices adopted by the Olympic Games or FIFA in planning a comprehensive trademark protection strategy. They may also consider imposing appropriate restrictions on unauthorized commercial or promotional activities through ticket terms and conditions and venue management regulations.

As Taiwan continues to promote major international sporting events and the development of the sports industry, the importance of official sponsorship programmes will only continue to grow. In recent years, organizers of major international sporting events have continued to adjust their approaches to managing ambush marketing. This demonstrates that the protection of sponsors' rights and interests is no longer confined to traditional intellectual property regimes, but has gradually developed into a multifaceted management model combining legal measures, contractual arrangements, and event management. The international experience described above not only merits continued attention in Taiwan, but may also serve as an important reference for event organizers in planning future sponsorship programmes and risk management measures.

(The article is originally in Chinese which can be found here.)