Ambush marketers are getting a free ride on the back of Olympic sponsors. Are they simply gunning for free publicity? Or are they crossing the line to intellectual property infringement and, in the process, negatively impacting the amounts sponsors are willing to pay?

In the coming Olympics, the competition is not just between athletes, but also between Olympics sponsors and unauthorized ambush marketers. A dozen companies – including Coca-Cola, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Kodak, McDonald's, Omega, Panasonic, Samsung Electronics and Visa – have paid a total of $900 million to be official sponsors of the Beijing Olympics. But instead of maximizing the bang for their buck, they’re fending off ambush marketers – competitors which, through sleight-of-hand advertising, associate themselves with an event even without paying sponsorship fees.

Ambush marketing, originally intended as a positive concept and still regarded by some to be just smart marketing practice, uses a variety of tactics and dubious advertising gimmicks such as these examples:

• Atlanta, 1996 – Nike (not an official sponsor) placed advertisements near the stadiums and established a "Nike village." This year, in Beijing, it has already introduced online videos highlighting its shoes.
• Lillehammer, 1994 - American Express ran a campaign saying Americans did not need a "visa" to travel to Norway, a dig at Winter Olympics sponsor VISA.
• India, 1996 - Pepsi flew large balloons near match venues of the Cricket World Cup to take the spotlight off Coca-Cola, an official sponsor.
• Beijing, 2008 – Pepsi is at it again, launching a new commemorative red can, the color of China’s flag and of the Coke brand (a sponsor), while CCTV runs Nike commercials featuring Chinese superstar Yao Ming, to the annoyance of sponsor Adidas. Each sponsor has paid at least $80 million to be associated with the games.

The result of such aggressive tactics could be brand dilution for the sponsor brands. Fortunately, with China’s piracy problems and poor track record in enforcing intellectual property rights, BOCOG (Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad) is taking steps to ensure that Beijing 2008 leaves a positive IP legacy and, more important, leaves post-Olympics China with stronger intellectual property awareness, protection, and enforcement.

• The organizing committee's marketing director, Chen Feng, has directed that: "Only those who financially sponsor the games have the right to market their products and maximize their commercial interests."
• The organizing committee has also required 2008 Olympic athletes to stop representing non-licensed companies during the games.
• Since 2001, China has issued a series of decrees to protect the Games. Its “clean venue” policy states that: "No form of publicity or propaganda, commercial or otherwise, may appear on persons, on sportswear, accessories or on any article of clothing or equipment worn or used by the athletes or other participants in the Olympic Games."
• Officials also pledged to fight ambush advertising during the Games, promising that all prominent advertising space in the capital will be controlled (with priority given to official sponsors) and that companies will be monitored for illegal advertising, with "serious action" to be taken against violators.
• Non-authorized drinks, as well as spectators' T-shirts advertising non-sponsors, will be banned from Games venues.
• And for the first time, the IOC is requiring national Olympic committees to pre-submit their Beijing uniforms for the opening and closing ceremonies, competition events and medal ceremonies.

Are all these rules reasonable? Consider this: While ambush marketing was originally employed by creative marketers with small budgets, today, it is the modus operandi of multi-nationals who want to take on their competitors. The tactics are not illegal, but do skirt the fringes of legal activity and the ethics surrounding them are very questionable. Moreover, official sponsors who pay dearly for the sponsorship rights don’t have any legal recourse – most ambushes are smart and creative so any actual infringement will be hard to prove and new ambush methods are being employed all the time. So, yes, maybe these types of guidelines will keep marketers playing fair.

What sponsor brands can do though, as Michael Payne, former commercial director of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and chief architect of its strategy to combat ambush marketing, suggested in his book, Olympic Turnaround, is to be brand stewards ready to fight to safeguard Olympic principles and IP rights.