Broadcast Law Blog : Broadcast Lawyer & Attorney : Broadcast Law Blog : Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco, Shanghai

In recent days we have seen political action committees (PACs) claiming they are "prohibited" from running political ads in primary states due to "new rules" regarding "electioneering communications."  As explained below, these claims are incorrect.  What they are really doing is trying to avoid the need to reveal the identity of their contributors, following a US District Court decision in March.

Under Federal Election law, an "electioneering communication" is a broadcast, cable or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, targeted to 50,000 or more people in the state or district the candidate seeks to represent. For President and Vice Presidential candidates, an "electioneering communication" is one that can be received by 50,000 or more people within 30 days of a state primary or the nominating convention.

By federal statute, sponsors of "electioneering communications" must disclose the names and addresses of each donor who contributed $1000 or more to the sponsoring organization. This is is the provision that led to the US District Court decision at issue.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) enacted a rule requiring disclosure of donors whose donation was made "for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications."  Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen challenged this rule on grounds that it created a loophole in the law.  According to Van Hollen, fewer than 10% of the contributors to electioneering communications in 2010 were disclosed to the FEC.

The US District Court agreed with Van Hollen, holding that the statute requires disclosure of ALL contributors of $1000 or more to organizations placing "electioneering communications," even if the contributions were not made for the specific purpose of funding the electioneering communication.  The number of contributors that would need to be disclosed under this ruling could be quite high, particularly since the US Supreme Court allowed corporations and unions to fund independent electioneering communications in its landmark 2009 Citizens United case discussed here.

 So, while some PACs erroneously claim they are "prohibited" from running electioneering communications due to a recent "FCC" ruling, the truth is that they do not want to subject themselves to the broad disclosure requirements established in the Van Hollen case.  The case is on appeal to the DC Circuit, so we should soon know whether the FEC or the US District Court was right in their respective interpretations of the disclosure statute.

In the meantime, "electioneering communications" can be avoided by not referring to a specific candidate, by avoiding states where primaries are to occur within 30 days or by communicating the message to fewer than 50,000 people.  While these ads will still be considered "independent expenditures" that have their own FEC reporting requirements, they are not nearly as burdensome as those recently imposed by the court on "electioneering communications."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we wrote about last year around this time, MARCH MADNESS is a term that is protected by trademark law.  It is owned by the March Madness Athletic Association (MMAA), a joint venture between the NCAA and the Illinois High School Athletic Association (IHSA).   The IHSA was actually first to begin using this mark to describe its high school basketball tournament in the 1940s. 

Brent Musburger brought MARCH MADNESS to public attention in using that term to describe the NCAA college basketball tournament, during which many hearts are broken each year....if you are lucky enough to have a team that made it this far. (Northwestern came this close to its first NCAA appearance.)

Normally, this would be a case of so-called "reverse confusion," in which the junior user of a mark (here, the NCAA) is so much bigger than the senior user of the mark (the IHSA) that the public thinks the mark belongs to the junior user.  In the typical reverse confusion case, the senior user can stop the junior user from using the mark.  But that did not happen here.  Why? 

In the typical reverse confusion case, the junior user adopts the senior user's mark and that can be stopped by the senior user.  But here, the public began using MARCH MADNESS to refer to the NCAA tournament before the NCAA began using the term itself.  The federal court that heard this trademark infringement action ruled that the IHSA could not stop the NCAA from using MARCH MADNESS because that term had entered the public domain as a nickname for the NCAA tournament before the NCAA adopted the mark itself.  Accordingly, the court held that the mark was subject to dual use by both NCAA and IHSA, who now own it jointly through the MMAA.

What does this mean for broadcasters?  It means your talent can discuss MARCH MADNESS all they like without fear of reprisal, so long as the term is not used to sell or promote goods or services.  The NCAA may not be as aggressive in protecting MARCH MADNESS as the NFL is in protecting SUPER BOWL, but the unauthorized commercial use of either term is prohibited by trademark law.  This means no "March Madness Sales" without authorization from the MMAA, which owns the trademark and related marketing rights to MARCH MADNESS.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the questions we commonly get from broadcasters and others around this time of year is whether and/or how they can use the term SUPER BOWL.  Some refer to it as a trademark while others call it a copyright.  Who is right...and how can it be used?  The term SUPER BOWL is a registered trademark owned by the National Football League. We previously discussed this issue in 2009, 2010 and 2011. 

Actually, the NFL owns at least eight trademark registrations containing the words SUPER BOWL, as well trademark registrations for the terms PRO BOWL and even SUPER SUNDAY.  Aside from these trademark registrations, the NFL also owns the copyright to the telecast of the game itself.  You may have heard that in past years, the NFL tried to stop Super Bowl parties shown on large TV screens.  This was an enforcement of the NFL's copyright in the game.  Now, the NFL apparently no longer tries to stop Super Bowl parties unless the proprietor charges admission to see the game.  Again, this is a copyright issue.  But what do these rights mean for a broadcaster who wants to run a Super Bowl promotion or an advertiser who wants to run a campaign involving the Big Game?

 

When it comes to use of the trademarked term SUPER BOWL, the NFL will take action against third party attempts to use that term in a commercial sense, in other words, to sell goods and services using the term SUPER BOWL in advertising.  This is because commercial sponsors pay the NFL to be the official car or soft drink or whatever of the SUPER BOWL.  Any unauthorized use of that term in advertising could imply a false sponsorship or affiliation with the NFL.

So, what is permitted?  It is fine to use the term SUPER BOWL in news stories about the game and in conversations about the game.  There is a trademark concept called "nominative fair use" that allows others to use a trademarked term when there is simply no better way to refer to it.  But that concept does not extend to commercial use of the term. 

In summary, you can discuss the Super Bowl and do news stories about the Super Bowl, all while referring to it as the Super Bowl.  But any commercials or promotional announcements should avoid use of that trademarked term.  It is OK for commercials to refer to it as the "Big Game" or any other term that does not include the words "Super Bowl" or "Super Sunday."

And go ahead and have that TV Super Bowl party you were planning.  You will not be violating any copyright enforced by the NFL so long as you do not charge admission to see the game.  By contrast, selling food and drink at the venue is permitted.  In fact, that is pretty much what every bar in the US will be doing on Super Sunday.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Reading the trade press and the blogs, one would think that the Tim Tebow ad that will reportedly air during the Super Bowl presented novel, controversial legal issues.  In fact, while we haven't seen the ad, from what we've read, there do not seem to be significant legal issues - most particularly ones that arise from an FCC perspective.  The word is that this ad is pro-life, telling his mother's story of why she decided to have her child after a medical recommendation that she not, and how that child grew up to be a famous quarterback.  Where are the FCC legal issues?  Even were this ad to explicitly address a "controversial issue of public importance", like the abortion debate, and even were stations running the ad not willing to take ads from pro-choice groups (and there is no indication that this sort of rejection of opposing viewpoints has occurred), as the debates earlier this year on the airwaves and over cable channels made clear, there is no longer any Fairness Doctrine enforced by the FCC.  Thus, there is no FCC requirement for stations having to give equal time to competing sides of any particular issue (even when the Fairness Doctrine existed, there was never an obligation for strict equal time - a broadcast station just needed to, in some manner, present both sides of an  issue).

At most, were the ad to advocate some specific Federal action, there might trigger an FCC obligation for stations that carry the ad to place a note in their public file about the ad and the amount paid to run it (see our post here), but otherwise the issue seems to be a tempest in a teapot.  Since the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine, broadcasters have been assumed to be able to exercise their own editorial discretion to decide what serves their audience and what doesn't.  In the vast majority of cases, no one bats an eye.  But combine celebrity, the Super Bowl and a reference to a political hot-button issue, and you have a media controversy - even though there is no legal one.  So, unless the ad has some content that no one seems to be contemplating, the folks at the FCC should be able to relax and simply watch the game (assuming no clothing malfunctions or similar unexpected events - which we will leave to another post on another day...)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With the Super Bowl and the Winter Olympics less than 2 weeks away, and March Madness not far behind, we once again need to remind our readers that all three are trademarked terms, meaning that their use, particularly for commercial purposes, is limited.  We've wrote here last year about the use of the term "Super Bowl" in commercials, and about the use of "Olympics" two years ago (here).  Our warning then bears repeating now - the trademarked terms should not be used in commercial messages except by authorized advertisers.  These advertisers have paid big bucks to be able to say that they are an Olympic sponsor, or that they are having a Super Bowl sale.  The holders of these trademarks enforce them rigorously (so that they can get the big bucks from the official advertisers), so don't risk their use without official permission.  See our Super Bowl post from last year for details on how to refer to these events without running afoul of trademark limitations.

As we wrote last year, this does not prevent all use of these terms.  News reports about the events can still be given.  DJs can still chat about who is going to win the Super Bowl, or about the latest judging controversy in Ice Dancing at the Winter Olympics.  But don't try to commercially exploit these terms (e.g. saying that you are "Springfield's March Madness station") unless you have really paid for the rights to use the trademarked term.  Be careful, as a cute promotional idea can end up costing your station far more than you intended. 

Note - 1/29/10 - We have had many questions since we first posted this entry, including the question as to whether the words "Super Bowl", "Olympics" and March Madness" are really "copyrighted" so they can't be used in local commercials.  While we hate to be too legal about it, but the issue discussed above is one of trademark, not copyright law.  Copyright covers creative works - movies, books, songs, etc. - while trademark covers the commercial use of words or symbols to represent a product or service, which is what the use of these words are - the identification of the particular events. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link