The court pointed out that the term "ambush marketing" is only used by marketing professionals and is not the same as "passing off." There is an element of overt or covert deception in a passing-off activity, whereas ambush marketing is the opportunistic commercial exploitation of an occurrence. Without the event organizer's permission, the marketer uses his own brand or other insignia to provide his own brand or other insignia a wider exposure to the individuals associated with the event. There is no deceit in such situations, thus the defendant's actions cannot be classified as unlawful or against the public interest.

ARTICLE 19 (1) of the Indian Constitution ー

A marketing campaign that does not feature the plaintiff's trademark or mascot cannot be considered illegal. As a result, it is up to the government to decide how far real fair competition and freedom of expression can be curtailed. Unlike the Olympic Games and its trademarks, which are protected under the Indian Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, neither statute or common law in India bans such an activity, and the World Cup is not protected by any international treaty or local legislation.

Many people see ambush marketing as a two-edged sword: on one one, it's seen as an opportune advertising approach, but on the other, it's seen as an unfair and at times violating activity. “Ambush marketing is the opportunistic commercial exploitation of an event,” according to the Delhi High Court. The ambush marketer does not try to imply a link with the event, but rather offers his own brand or other symbol a bigger exposure to the individuals who are associated with the event, without the event organizer's permission.”

LEGISLATIONS

Because there are currently no specific rules or mechanisms in existing legal frameworks to deal with ambush marketing, most ambush marketing claims seek refuge under intellectual property rights violation and the common law of passing off.

What exactly do we mean when you say "passing off"?

In the event of unregistered trademarks, this common law remedies can be sought against ambush marketers. In order to prevail in a passing-off lawsuit, the claimant must satisfy the traditional trinity test, which requires him to show that:

• The claimant has an excellent reputation;

• The defendant made a false statement that is likely to mislead or confuse the public.

• The claimant's goodwill is harmed by the misrepresentation.

• Brand Infringement– If the event organisers have registered their trademark and the illegal sponsor is using a similar mark, infringement actions can be filed against the ambusher.

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

This remedy is more likely to be sought in the case of illegal duplication of a specific mark developed in connection with the event by a third party. There have been occasions where big sporting events have made it a requirement that the organising countries enact legislation to specifically address the threat of ambush marketing. In preparation for the 2003 Cricket World Cup and the 2010 FIFA World Cup, the South African Parliament passed legislation in 2001 and 2002 that especially addressed ambush marketing. In addition, major event organisers such as the Australian Olympic Committee in 2000, China's Olympic Committee in 2008, and the United Kingdom's Olympic Committee in 2012 have all introduced event-specific legislation or altered existing laws to include protection for official sponsors.

Returning to India, there have only been a few examples of ambush marketing where relief has been awarded under the laws of passing off, trademark, or copyright. The only case that comes to mind when it comes to ambush marketing is ICC Development (International) Ltd. vs. EverGreen Station1, in which, despite the fact that the plaintiff claimed an infringement of copyright and a prima facie case of passing off, unfair competition, ambush marketing, and violation of publicity rights, an injunction was granted against the defendant solely on the basis of misuse of the defendant's trademark. Therefore, the Indian Copyright Act and the concept of ambush marketing was overlooked.

Among the lack of legislative measures to prevent ambush marketing, the International Cricket Council (ICC) deserves credit for enforcing strict adherence to their ambush marketing clause, which clearly states that players must stop promoting companies and products unrelated to the World Cup before the tournament begins. In light of these regulations, M.S. Dhoni, the captain of the Indian cricket team, was targeted for promoting and supporting businesses such as Sony and Aircel, who were competitors of the ICC's official sponsors for the World Cup 2011.

AMBUSH MARKETING, CELEBRITY RIGHTS LAWS, AND THE DELHI HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) BILL 2015.

With popularity comes the necessity for celebrities all around the globe to safeguard their valuable personal brands, which are derived from their name and likeness, as well as their intellectual property rights, from being used by unauthorised users. IP rights can vary considerably amongst IP regimes, as seen by the recent lawsuit involving Michael Jordan in the People's Republic of China.

Michael Jordan, a legendary NBA basketball player, recently lost a case in China's Beijing Municipal High People's Court against Qiaodan Sports, a sportswear company that trademarked the literal Chinese translation of Jordan and sold basketball apparel with his Chicago Bulls jersey number 23 and a shadow-like jumping man logo. Jordan said that customers were being duped into thinking it was his brand or a product he backed. Why wasn't Jordan's case a slam dunk, and could a foreign celebrity who failed to trademark the translation of his or her name in India face a similar fate in an Indian court? With a few exceptions, China adheres to a rigorous first-to-file policy. According to this rule, the person who registers the mark first gets priority over a previous user, unless the latter is a well-known mark or has a significant influence in China as a result of its use. Unregistered trademarks in China are not subject to any common law remedies. As a result, Michael Jackson's case would have been a near-slam dunk if he had first registered the Mandarin version of his name in China. Unlike China, India does not follow the principle of "first to file." On the basis of prior use, the Trademarks Act of 1999 provides a common-law remedy for an unregistered trademark. If someone is misappropriating the celebrity's goodwill and portraying that it is somehow related to the latter, the celebrity might start a passing off action.

In India, trademark law and passing off actions can safeguard celebrity rights. A celebrity can register his name as a trademark for goods and services under the Trademarks Act. Furthermore, passing off occurs when someone tries to misappropriate a celebrity's goodwill or renown in order to market their goods and services while claiming that the celebrity endorses them. Many states in the United States have tort privacy laws that protect a celebrity's name or likeness from being used for commercial benefit, in addition to intellectual property protections. Are there any tort protections equivalent to those in the United States in India? In India, a person's right to privacy is protected under the country's constitution. Despite the fact that India lacks a particular legislative provision on personality rights, the notions of privacy and publicity are slowly being shaped to safeguard these rights. The right to publicity developed from the right to privacy, which is again intimately linked to the right to life and personal liberty, according to Indian courts.

As a result, circumlocutory, personal rights are linked to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Though basic rights are only enforceable against the government, the courts have acknowledged that in the private realm, a violation of privacy case might be brought under tort law. Defamation is also a well-established notion in India, recognised as both a civil wrong and a criminal violation. Furthermore, the Advertising Standards Council of India's Code, the Code for Commercial Advertising on Television, and the Standards of Practice for Radio Advertising all contain clauses stating that prior to using a person's references, proper consent is necessary.

CONCLUSION

To sum up, because there is no legislation in India that regulates the practise of ambush marketing, the precedents of the courts serve as a form of protection for the official sponsors. Parties can also engage into contractual arrangements for exclusive sponsorships to protect their interests from rivals. For example, the International Cricket Council (ICC) instructed Indian batsman MS Dhoni to cease advertising Sony and Aircel (then competitors to official World Cup sponsors) in 2011 because it violated the ambush marketing rule.