“Ambush marketing”: How brands associate themselves with the World Cup without being official sponsors.

The phenomenon of ambush marketing reflects the tensions between the exclusivity sought by organizers of major sporting events and the advertising creativity of brands that seek to capitalize on the events’ media exposure without incurring the high costs of sponsorship.

In an article published in El Confidencial, Pablo Pedraza, an intellectual property attorney, explains that these practices consist of “associating oneself with a high-profile sporting event without being an official sponsor or having the organizer’s authorization,” and warns that they straddle “a fine line between legitimate advertising creativity and a potential infringement of third-party rights.”

El experto analiza las distintas modalidades de ambush marketing, desde el uso directo de signos protegidos —que “constituye una evidente infracción marcaria”— hasta fórmulas más complejas. En este sentido, destaca que “la dificultad para observar una infracción de derechos es cuando nos encontramos con las conductas indirectas”, en las que las marcas logran evocar el evento sin utilizar elementos registrados, lo que hace que “no siempre resulte sencillo identificar con claridad dónde está el límite”.

The expert analyzes the various forms of ambush marketing, ranging from the direct use of protected marks—which “constitutes a clear trademark infringement”—to more complex strategies. In this regard, he emphasizes that “the difficulty in detecting a rights infringement arises when we encounter indirect conduct,” in which brands manage to evoke the event without using registered elements, making it “not always easy to clearly identify where the line is drawn.”

It also emphasizes that, in addition to trademark law, these practices may violate intellectual property and unfair competition laws, especially when they cause confusion or involve taking advantage of another party’s reputation.

Finally, it concludes that “ambush marketing does not, in and of itself, constitute unlawful advertising conduct,” although it cautions that the line between what is permitted and what is prohibited is, in many cases, “particularly blurred,” which requires a detailed analysis in each specific case.