Search form

Comments (2)

avatar

Ginger Paque April 16, 2012

Excellent post, Jovan. This recent article on Olympics branding (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/13/olympics-2012-branding-police-sponsors) underlines the importance of separating the Olympics case from the Red Cross case--and also gives foundation to the reluctance to risk taking even a small step in towards more brand protection. An advantage to China, as Olympic host, was the immediate link to an image of 'China' and 'Olympics'. But by law, (required by the Olympic's Committee), as the article points out: 'Pub landlords will be banned from posting signs reading: Come and watch the London Games from our big screen!' and non-sponsors of the 2012 Olympic games must avoid using any two of the following list: 'Games, Two Thousand and Twelve, 2012, Twenty-Twelve'. Athletes will receive a 'detailed social media and blogging policy for athletes', so they know they cannot mention a non-sponsor in a tweet. Is it surprising then, that there is not support for gTLD brand protection?
avatar

Jovan Kurbalija April 16, 2012

Thank you Ginger. It is another prove that the Red Cross and International Olympic Committee should have been treated separately by the ICANN. If the IOC extends the same logic to the Internet (as it already started doing), it won't be good either for Olympic idea or Internet development.

Leave a comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Scroll to Top