Abstract
Sponsors claim that ambush marketing damages the integrity and financial basis of an event, however, definitions of “ambushing” remain ambiguous, particularly where more than oneparty lays claim to specific images. When the New Zealand Rugby Football Union (NZRFU) changed its official apparel supplier from Canterbury International Limited (CIL) to adidas, CIL argued it was entitled to draw on its past involvement with the All Blacks. This paper explores ambush marketing in NZRFU v CILand concludes by offering suggestions that couldreduce the likelihood of similar situations arising
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
