Telstra Wins Challenge Over Rio Olympic Ads

(ATR) Ads by the Australian telecom Telstra did not infringe on Olympic rights say the country’s top court.

The ruling from the Full Federal Court of Australia rejected infringement claims against Telstra by the Australian Olympic Committee. The Federal Court initially ruled against the AOC in June 2016. The decision of the full court this week ends the appeal of the AOC.

AOC CEO Matt Carroll calls the ruling "disappointing".

The AOC tried to block the Telstra "I Go To Rio" marketing campaign, asserting that Telstra broke the Olympic Insignia Protection Act and Australian Consumer Law because the company wasn’t an Olympic sponsor. Rival Optus holds the telecom category.

The advertising, which includes a TV spot showing Australians following what appear to be Olympic sports on their mobile devices. The Olympic rings or other trademarks are not used nor is there any mention of the Rio Olympics.

Telstra contends that its campaign simply promoted its connection to the Seven Network, the Australian rights holder for the 2016 Olympics. Seven’s coverage of the Games was available to Telstra mobile customers through a Telstra app.

The AOC had claimed that Telstra had found a back door to trumpet an Olympics connection for commercial gain.

"It's a very extensive, no doubt extremely well thought out, very extensive advertising campaign, which a significant part extent of it is ... trading off what's about to happen in a few weeks' time, bearing in mind what the Olympics are about, how they resonate with the Australian population and millions of people in the world, and the fact that Telstra was a sponsor I think from 1990 until 2012," the AOC argued.

An attorney for Telstra argued there was no attempt by the company to deceive the Australian public.

""Telstra is sponsoring Seven's coverage, Telstra is sponsoring Seven's'Olympics on Seven' app, Telstra has arrangements with Seven to be designated as the official technology partner of Seven's coverage, and there's nothing that's in there that's untrue," said the counsel.

In its initial ruling last year, the court found no evidence of wrongdoing by Telstra.

"None of the advertisements, videos, catalogues, emails, or online materials, or other marketing or promotional materials that employ the Olympic expressions, would suggest to a reasonable person that Telstra is or was a sponsor of, or is or was the provider of sponsorship-like support, to any relevant Olympic body," wrote one of the justices.

The Full Court appeal was a unanimous decision with the AOC ordered to pay Telstra's costs.

After being contacted by the AOC last year, Telstra placed disclaimers in its advertising that it was promoting Seven’s coverage of the Games and that Telstra wasn’t an Olympic rights holder.

Carroll says the AOC believes the ruling is not an opening for other firms to use Olympic themes in their marketing.

"It dealt with very specific facts. Telstra had entered into an agreement with Channel Seven, the exclusive Australian broadcaster of the 2016 Rio Olympic Games and Telstra’s conduct was held to be permissible in that context. The Court viewed Telstra’s ads as suggesting sponsorship of Seven’s Olympic broadcast rather than of the Rio Games," says Carroll in a statement.

He adds that the AOC will do all it can to protect its commercial relationships and intellectual property.

"The AOC receives no government funding and relies entirely on sponsorship to send our Olympic teams to the Games. It will continue to prioritize protection of the investment our sponsors make and to take action against those seeking to capitalize on the Olympic movement without authority," Carroll says.

An attorney for the AOC says the ruling may make it more difficult to maximize sponsor revenue in the future.

Reported by Ed Hula.