Don't Put The Words 'Rugby' 'World' And 'Cup' Together In New Zealand, Or You Might Get Fined

from the descriptive? dept

Not again. What is it with major international sporting events and governments' willingness to bend over backwards to give them extraordinary intellectual property protections? We all know about how the Olympics seems to always get intellectual property rights that go beyond any standard trademark laws. And we've seen similar things with the FIFA World Cup. Apparently, the same is happening for other "World Cups" as well. Lawrence D'Oliveiro points us to the news that the Rugby World Cup was able to get a special law passed in New Zealand that could make using those three words together in the wrong way subject to fines of up to $150,000. Basically, you can't say those words in any sort of fundraiser, promotion or event, unless you're an official sponsor. The Rugby World Cup people promise they'll "use common sense" before going after anyone using those words, but already some fundraisers and car rental shops have been told to change their signs for mentioning the World Cup.

Filed Under: new zealand, rugby, trademark, world cup

News Outlets Decide Not To Give Rugby World Cup Free Publicity

from the have-it-your-way dept

Just earlier today we had a post on how the NFL still thinks it can tell news organizations how they can do their job, in spite of fair use, and well, logic and reason. The Rugby World Cup kicks off Friday, and its organizers are involved in a similar spat with media groups covering the event. Back in April, organizers tried to put restrictions on the number of photos news outlets could publish online, and also how they were published (lest anything cover up a sponsor's logo). Major media outlets, including the AP, Reuters and AFP aren't playing ball, though, and are boycotting the event until the dispute is resolved. As much as the World Cup organizers would like to think they don't care, they depend on widespread media coverage and the free publicity it generates to drive their money machines. They say they're acting to protect companies that have paid for certain broadcasting rights, but what they're really trying to protect are the huge fees these companies have paid. They seem to think that letting news outlets print photos online threaten things like TV rights, but it would seem that the opposite is true. By reducing the amount of news coverage for the event -- which acts as publicity -- they're going to hurt the amount of interest people have in it. In turn, perhaps they won't be nearly as interested to follow it on TV or radio or anywhere else rightsholders have paid to deliver it. That's what really threatens their revenues, not the fact that people can go online and see photos from matches.

Filed Under: media, media restrictions, rugby
Companies: afp, ap, reuters