Ambush Marketing and the 2010 Vancouver-Whistler Olympic Games:

A Prospective View

 

1. Introduction – The Vancouver Perspective

The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games has broadly defined ambush marketing in the following terms:

Only official sponsors, licensees and government partners of the Olympic Movement in Canada are allowed to suggest an affiliation or connection with the Olympic Movement or any Olympic Games. Unfortunately, those exclusive rights can be infringed by “ambush marketing” – marketing that capitalizes on the goodwill of the Movement by creating a false, unauthorized association with the Olympic Movement, Olympic Games or Olympic athletes without making the financial investment required to secure official sponsorship rights.[1]

There is no unanimity of view that the practice of ambush marketing is an unfair and unethical marketing tactic rather than a creative, effective and legal marketing practice.[2] However, this article will not examine this question but rather will focus on the anticipated effectiveness of the legislative effort to protect official corporate sponsors of the Olympic Games from the threat of ambush marketing. This threat has been described in stark terms by The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games as follows:

The Olympic Brand is a key part of VANOC’s sponsorship and licensing programs, because only official sponsors, licensees and government partners of the Olympic Movement in Canada are allowed to use the Olympic Brand in Canada. Unauthorized use of the Olympic Brand threatens to undermine VANOC’s sponsorship and licensing programs and VANOC’s ability to raise the funds necessary to host and stage the 2010 Winter Games, because Olympic sponsors and licensees will not make significant financial investments to use the Olympic Brand if their competitors and others can do so for free.

This is important for all Canadians. Revenue from sponsors and licensees is critical to the successful staging of the 2010 Winter Games, increasing funding for Canadian athletes, and sport and cultural legacies for all Canadians…

Ambush marketing can be intentional –a tactic used by unscrupulous businesses to exploit the goodwill of the Olympic movement – or inadvertent. Either way, ambush marketing is unfair and unethical because ambush marketing allows the ambush marketer to benefit from an association with the Olympic Movement without providing any financial support for the Canadian Olympic Movement, 2010 Winter Games or Canadian Olympic athletes.

Ambush marketing is a real threat to VANOC’s sponsorship and licensing programs because it undermines the value of official sponsorship and licensing rights and impairs VANOC’s ability to attract future sponsorship and licensees. It also threatens the financial viability of future Olympic Games by impairing the ability of Games organizers to raise necessary sponsorship and licensing funding.

VANOC must protect the Olympic Brand against unauthorized use and ambush marketing as part of its efforts to stage a well-organized and financially successful 2010 Winter Games. VANOC has contractual obligations to the International Olympic Committee to protect the Olympic Brand against unauthorized use and to prevent ambush marketing in Canada.[3]

 

II. Methods of Ambush Marketing

Attempts by competitors of official sponsors to trade on the goodwill of the Olympic Games by creating an association between the non-sponsor and the Olympic Games without authorization from the host organization and without payment of any sponsorship or licensing fees have historically been accomplished by several different non-sponsor marketing strategies including sponsoring the television broadcast of the event, sponsoring sub-categories within the event such as a federation, team or particular athletes, purchasing advertising time on television before, during and after an event, creating promotions that coincide with the event, purchasing advertising on billboards in the vicinity of the cite, and handing out merchandise so that spectators effectively become walking billboards for the non-sponsored competing brand at an event.[4] These marketing strategies are usually combined with the use of words or imagery that will remind consumers of the Olympic Games.[5] For example, prior to the commencement of the 1994 Winter Olympic Games in Lillehammer, Norway, television advertisements featuring Visa, an official sponsor, proclaimed that American Express cards were not accepted in the Olympic Village. In response, American Express, a non-sponsor, aired its owned television commercials in which it effectively and truthfully utilized a double entendre stating that “If you are traveling to Lillehammer, you’ll need a passport, but you don’t need a Visa”.[6] The question that arises from this, and indeed other myriad examples of ambush marketing surrounding the Olympic Games, is whether consumers mistakenly believed that the non-sponsor, American Express in this case, was in fact a sponsor of the Olympic Games or otherwise had some connection or affiliation with the Olympic Games.

 

III. Ambush Marketing and Traditional Intellectual Property Remedies in Canada – Passing Off

Instances of ambush marketing, unlike activities such as counterfeiting that involve the unauthorized use of a registered trademark on merchandise, are rarely actionable or amenable to the traditional intellectual property remedies of trademark infringement. Ambush marketers do not use the trademarks of third parties but rather creatively allude to a sporting event and use their own trademarks to suggest a connection or affiliation with that sporting event.[7] It is thus not at all surprising that there are so few instances where Courts have had an opportunity to deal directly with the issue of ambush marketing.

National Hockey League v. Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd.,infra, is the sole example where a Canadian Court has addressed the issue.[8]

An important source of revenue for the National Hockey League and its member clubs comes from the sale of licenses that allow a licensee to display the league’s registered trademarks on or in conjunction with the licensees products and to claim affiliation with the league and its member clubs. The National Hockey League had awarded one such license to Coca-Cola Ltd. which designated Coca-Cola Ltd. as an official sponsor of the N.H.L. and allowed it to describe its Diet Coke product as “the official Soft Drink of the N.H.L.". The license also included a term that Coca-Cola Ltd. had the right to use the symbols of the National Hockey League and its member clubs for its promotional programs in Canada and the United States of America.[9]

The license did not provide any right for Coca-Cola Ltd. to advertise in Canada during the broadcast of any National Hockey League games. The broadcast rights in Canada had been sold to Molson which in turn granted Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd. the right to be the exclusive advertiser of soft drinks during the broadcast of all Hockey Night in Canada games.[10]

The action concerned an advertising campaign by Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd. in the spring of 1990 called the “Diet Pepsi $4,000,000 Pro Hockey Playoff Pool” and the promotional material related to that contest. Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd. advertised the contest on television during the broadcast of the Stanley Cup playoff series. In order to participate in the contest, bottle cap liners and specially marked cups included the statement “If [followed by the name of a city or state that was home to an N.H.L. team] wins in [followed by one of the numbers 4, 5, 6 or 7] games, you win” followed by a description of prizes that could be won. Hang tags were placed over the necks on bottles of Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd.’s products. The front of the hang tags prominently displayed the name of the contest. The contest was also widely publicized by other means.[11]

The National Hockey League alleged that Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd. was guilty of the tort of passing off on the basis that the contest and particularly the television commercials were likely to convey to the public a false impression that the National Hockey League and its member clubs approved, authorized, endorsed or were in some manner associated with the contest and consequently Pepsi-Cola’s products.[12] Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd. acknowledged that the cities and states named on the bottle cap liners and cups were intended to refer to the N.H.L. teams based in the named locations, that the words “Pro Hockey Playoff” was a reference to the Stanley Cup playoffs, and that the numbers were meant to refer to the number of games in the final series that were required by the named team to win the Stanley Cup.[13] Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd. conceded that the contest was designed to obtain commercial advantage from the publicity that its products would receive during the playoffs but denied that the contest was an attempt to pass off its products as being in any way approved, authorized, or endorsed by or associated with the National Hockey League and its member clubs. Rather, the contest was an aggressive but legitimate marketing campaign.[14]

The trial judge observed that the more common type of passing off occurs in circumstances where it is alleged that a defendant has promoted its product or business in such a way as to create the false impression that his product or business is in some way approved, authorized or endorsed by the plaintiff or that there is some business connection between the defendant and the plaintiff.[15] He concluded that there must be a representation that the defendant’s goods are connected with the plaintiff in such a way as would lead people to accept them on the faith of the plaintiff’s reputation.[16] The question was whether the advertising went beyond that which was legitimate and represented to the public that the National Hockey League or any of its member clubs approved, authorized or endorsed the contest and thereby, by implication, the products of Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd., or that there was some business connection between the National Hockey League and its member clubs and Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd.[17]

In support of the allegation of passing off, the National Hockey League relied, in the main, on the results of a survey that it had caused to be conducted soon after the end of the 1990 hockey season on a single day at three shopping malls all within the Greater Vancouver Regional District.[18] However, the trial judge found the survey failed to meet the test necessary to enable the results to be admitted in evidence on the basis that the wrong universe and sample were selected for the survey. In particular, the universe and sample selected was inappropriate because it was “consumers of soft drinks who had seen the ad on television” rather than “Canadians who may have been exposed to the contest”.[19]

The trial judge also acknowledged that the tribunal of fact must not only consider the evidence but also use its own common sense when evaluating the likelihood of the public being deceived or confused. The trial judge concluded that he was unable to say that the contest suggested to his mind that the National Hockey League or its member clubs approved, authorized or endorsed the contest in any way or that there was some form of business connection between the National Hockey League, its member clubs and Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd. However, the trial judge attached little weight to his own common sense because he acknowledged that his own perception may very well have been influenced by the trial itself.[20]

It is without doubt that the admissibility of the survey was key to the success of the action and that the passing off action failed because the National Hockey League could not establish, without the admission of the survey, the requisite elements of the cause of action of passing off.[21]

One commentator has opined that the case:

does send a clear message to those wanting to undertake tactics similar to those used by Pepsi. As Davis notes, the case also demonstrates just how reluctant the courts can be to find a violation of existing law unless there has been a clear “trademark and trade name” infringement and this infringement is part of the overall marketing campaign.[22]

Another commentator has stated:

NHL v. Pepsi made it clear that, however the rest of the world chose to handle the problem of ambush marketing, “pure” ambush marketing such as was involved in this case-involving no trademark infringement or other legal violations-was an acceptable practice in Canada.[23]

Considerable caution should be exercised in concluding that any such messages have been delivered as to the acceptance of the practice of pure ambush marketing in Canada.

Rather, the case should be regarded as a cautionary tale with respect to the critical importance of properly designed surveys in trademark cases. It would be unwise to extrapolate from the limited “common sense” observations of the trial judge, to which he himself gave little weight, that the practice of pure ambush marketing in Canada will inevitably survive an allegation of passing off in circumstances where admissible survey evidence could be considered. Indeed, commentators have relied significantly on surveys which have revealed some considerable confusion with respect to the public perception of the identity of the major official sponsors of the Olympic Games and other major sporting events as evidence of the effectiveness of pure ambush marketing.[24]

 

IV. Olympics Specific Legislation – Australia

The Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 1996, now repealed, was enacted to put in place legal protection for official corporate sponsors of the Sydney 2000 Summer Olympic Games from ambush marketing. The legislation was designed to protect indicia of the Sydney Games including “Sydney 2000 Games images" defined as any visual or aural representations that to a reasonable person, in the circumstances of the presentation, would suggest a connection with the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games and the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games. The unlicensed use of the indicia and images for commercial purposes applied to goods and services in such a way that to a reasonable person would suggest that the party was a sponsor or provider of other support for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games and the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games was prohibited.[25]

The authors of Ambush Marketing and the Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act: A Retrospective have argued that the Act largely failed to achieve its purpose largely on the basis that “advertising which some official sponsors might classify as ambush marketing was not prevented”. The authors state:

If one overall conclusion is to be drawn from the experience of the Sydney 2000 Act, it is that the reality of ambush marketing is such that laws alone may well prove inadequate for responding to ingenious marketing strategies.…

What this paper has highlighted, however, is that something in addition to the type of legal solutions contained in the Sydney 2000 Act must be given serious consideration and much more discussion. The law as it stands now seems unable to accommodate the concerns of official corporate sponsors. There is no limit to human ingenuity. As such, ambush marketing at the margins will arguably always occur…

The Sydney 2000 Act, aimed as it was at rectifying those situations of most concern to official corporate sponsors, did not achieve that which it proponents had hoped for. As such, it does not stand out as an acceptable alternative for those charged with organizing future events and raises the question as to whether more can be done to ensure better protections…[26]

The opinion of the authors as to the general ineffectiveness of legislation aimed at curbing pure ambush marketing may well be correct but it must be acknowledged that the analysis was based upon a dearth of any jurisprudence. Ansett, an official sponsor of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games did commence proceedings in the Federal Court prior to the commencement of the Olympic Games for an injunction to prevent Qantas from engaging in ambush marketing but the proceeding was settled after several hearing days without any decision from the Court. Qantas had run a full page advertisement with the title “Australia Wide Olympic* Sale” The asterisk referenced a statement in small type that Qantas was not an Olympic sponsor. The authors opine that if Ansett could not successfully prosecute an action in these circumstances that it was unlikely that ambush marketing could be prevented under the Act or any other Act with a similar objective, stating:

…Given the results in the Qantas case outlined above, it is arguable that court cases would not have proven successful. Indeed, in light of the result in the case against Qantas and the sparse reporting of any other cases, it appears that unless there is an explicit breach of the Olympic Insignia Act or the defined expressions sections of the Sydney 2000 Act, it will be difficult to argue that there has been an infringement or that the advertising is in any sense unlawful…The Qantas advertisements, for example, did not feature the Olympic motto, the Olympic symbol, he other Olympic designs or the torch and flame. Similarly, they did not use any of the Sydney 2000 Games indicia. Arguably there may have been a breach of Section 12 (1) of the Sydney 2000 Act, which prohibits the use of Sydney 2000 games images for commercial purposes. However, as this paper has revealed, it is unlikely that the courts will see this type of visual representation as a marketing tactic which, to the reasonable person in the circumstances of the presentation, suggests a connection with the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games…[27]

Again, without challenging the authors’ views that legislation aimed at curbing pure ambush marketing is largely ineffective, it must be accepted that the conclusions are based broadly on conjecture. One is left to speculate as to the varied reasons why the legal response of the official sponsors to ambush marketing activities during the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games was not as aggressive as the ambush marketing activities themselves.

In the absence of any meaningful jurisprudence as to the interpretation of The Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 1996, the experience of both the Sydney Games as well as the decision in National Hockey League v. Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd, infra, offer limited insight with respect to whether similar legislation will effectively address the concerns of The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games as they pertain to pure ambush marketing.

V. Olympics Specific Legislation – Canada

In anticipation of the 2010 Vancouver-Whistler Olympic Games and with the objective of ensuring the protection of trademarks related to the Olympic Games and protecting against certain misleading business associations, the government of Canada has introduced Bill C-47, which is to be known as the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act. The Bill was given first reading in the Senate on June 14, 2007.[28] The question which this article will address is whether this legislative response might effectively achieve the purpose of ameliorating the concerns expressed by VANOC.

Section 3(1) of Bill C-47 provides that no person shall adopt or use in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, an Olympic or Paralympic mark or a mark that so nearly resembles an Olympic or Paralympic mark as to be likely to be mistaken for it.[29] Olympic and Paralympic marks include the marks that are set out in Schedules 1 and 2 of Bill C-47[30] and include the words and phrases in Schedule 1, such as Canadian Olympic Committee, Canadian Paralympic Committee, Faster, Higher, Stronger, International Olympic Committee, International Paralympic Committee, Olympia, Olympiad, Olympian, Olympic, Olympic Games, Olympics, Paralympian, Paralympic, Paralympic Games, Paralympics, Spirit in Motion[31]and the words and phrases in Schedule 2 such as Canada 2010, Canada’s Games, COVAN, Games City, Sea to Sky Games, Vancouver 2010, Vancouver Games, Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, VANOC, Whistler 2010, and Whistler Games.[32] The marks set out in Column 1 of Schedule 2 will be considered not to be an Olympic or Paralympic mark after December 31, 2010.[33]

The words and expressions used in Bill C-47 shall, unless the context otherwise requires, have the same meaning as in the Trade-Marks Act.[34] Section 3 (1) of Bill C-47 is similar to section 9 of the Trade-Marks Act which provides that no person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for an official mark.[35]

The test to be applied under section 9(1) of the Trade-Marks Act is whether or not the mark consists of, or so nearly resembles as to be likely to be mistaken for, the official mark. In other words, is the mark identical to, or almost the same as, the official mark.[36] In Big Sisters Assn. Of Ontario v. Big Brothers of Canada, supra, Mr. Justice Gibson rejected the argument that the test is one of "straight comparison" but, rather concluded that the test is one of resemblance, stating:

 

Clearly, the Defendant's mark is not identical to the marks of BSAO. The issue then is whether or not the Defendant's mark is almost the same as, or substantially similar to any or all of BSAO's marks...

 

It has been contended that the words "consists of" are not equivalent to "identical to" but the Federal Court of Canada held otherwise in Canadian Council of Professional Engineers v. APA-The Engineered Wood Assn., infra.[37]. Mr. Justice O'Keefe held that the words "consisting of" in s. 9 of the Trade-Marks Act are to be interpreted to mean "identical to"and do not mean "including".

 

Even in circumstances where there is a "fairly high degree of resemblance" between the two marks, that will not be determinative. The section has historically been strictly construed and it is only the most careless of ambush marketers that will run afoul of section 3(1) of Bill C-47.

 

Section 4(1) of Bill C-47 provides that no person shall, during any period prescribed by regulation, in association with a trade-mark or other mark, promote or otherwise direct public attention to their business, wares or services in a manner that misleads or is likely to mislead the public into believing that (a) the person’s business, wares or services are approved, authorized or endorsed by an organizing committee, the Canadian Olympic Committee or the Canadian Paralympic Committee; or (b) a business association exists between the person’s business and the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, an organizing Committee, the Canadian Olympic Committee or the Canadian Paralympic Committee.[38]

 

Section 4(1) closely mirrors the traditional intellectual property remedy of passing off that was considered by the Courts in British Columbia in National Hockey League v. Pepsi-Cola Ltd., supra. In determining whether a person has acted contrary to subsection (1), the court shall take into account any evidence that the person has used, in any language, (a) a combination of expressions set out in Part 1 of Schedule 3; or (b) the combination of an expression set out in Part I of Schedule 3 with an expression set out in Part 2 of that schedule. The expressions set out in Schedule 3 to Bill C-47 include Games, 2010, Twenty-ten, 21^st, Twenty-first, XXI, 10^th, Tenth, Xth, and Medals.[39] The expressions set out in Part II of Schedule III include Winter, Gold, Silver, Bronze, Sponsor, Vancouver, and Whistler.[40]

 

Interestingly, the Bill does not contemplate the absolute prohibition of the use in advertising of any of these expressions alone and indeed even the combination of any of the expressions. Rather, the Courts will simply be required to take such evidence into account in determining whether a person has acted contrary to section 4 (1). As with the prohibition contained in section 3(1) of Bill C-47, it is likely that only the most careless of ambush marketers would design a marketing campaign that would utilize one of the designated combinations of expressions set out in Schedule 3.

 

All of the words and expressions in Schedules 2 and 3 will be repealed as of December 31, 2010.[41]

 

If a court finds, on application, that an act has been done contrary to section 3 or 4, it may make any order that it considers appropriate in the circumstances, including an order providing for relief by way of injunction and recovery of damages or profits, for punitive damages, for the publication of a corrective advertisement and for the destruction, exportation or other disposition (a) of any offending goods, packages, labels and advertising material; and (b) of any dies used to apply to those goods, packages, labels or advertising a mark whose adoption or use is prohibited under section 3.[42] The Act in this regard mimics the remedies that are available to litigants in traditional intellectual property cases.[43] No remedy may be awarded in respect of an act contrary to section 3 or 4 that was committed more than three years before the commencement of an action under subsection 5(1).[44]

 

However, Bill C-47 does include one provision that could be of considerable assistance in the context of an ambush marketing action commenced under section 4 (1) of Bill C-47. Section 6 provides that if an interim or interlocutory injunction is sought in respect of an act that is claimed to be contrary to section 3 or 4, an applicant is not required to prove that it will suffer irreparable harm.[45]

 

In recent years, the availability of interim and interlocutory injunctions in intellectual property infringement cases has been severely circumscribed by the requirement to demonstrate irreparable harm. It is quite likely that a traditional passing off action would not be viewed by official sponsors who had been victims of ambush marketing as a realistic option in the absence of this provision because of the view that the damage had already been done. This provision may well facilitate the commencement of actions pursuant to section 4(1).

 

VI. Additional Measures Available to Official Sponsors

 

A variety of additional measures have been utilized by the International Olympic Committee, host cities and official sponsors to combat at least some the methods that have been effectively used by ambush marketers in the past. In 1997, the International Olympic Committee announced that any city bidding to host the Olympic Games in the future must purchase all advertising space for use by official sponsors within the host city for the entire month during which the Olympic Games are held.[46]

 

Further, measures have been undertaken to impose restrictions on awarding tickets to Olympic events in commercial promotions without authorization and to preventing the products of competitors of official sponsors from being displayed or carried by spectators at events.[47] FIFA has been especially aggressive in pursuing such measures. Fans of the Netherlands at the 2006 FIFA World Cup were required to disrobe their lleuwenhosen before being allowed to enter the stadium. The pants had been provided to fans as part of a commercial promotion and displayed the logo of a brewery that was not the World Cup’s official beer sponsor.

 

Australia enacted the Olympic Arrangements Act prior to the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.[48] The Act included provisions that prohibited the sale of any unauthorized merchandising articles within a specified radius of an event location during the Olympic Games and also prohibited skywriting or flying banners above event locations.[49]

 

Commentators who argue that the legislative efforts of Australia to prevent ambush marketing during the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games largely failed to achieve their purpose concede that these provisions went further than ever before and were arguably more successful than other host cities in controlling some aspects of ambush marketing.[50]

 

VII. Measures Available to Ambush Marketers to Avoid Lawsuits

 

Small and medium businesses cannot afford to pay the license fees that must be paid by official sponsors. The ingenuity of ambush marketers in protecting themselves from liability has been noted by virtually all commentators.

 

In the light of Bill C-47, ambush marketers may seek to ensure protection from liability by including in all advertising materials an unambiguous disclaimer stating that they are not affiliated with or endorsed by the International Olympic Committee, the Canadian Olympic Committee or the Olympic Committee of the host city.

 

In National Hockey League v. Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd.,[51] the trial judge made only passing reference in reaching his primary conclusion that the claim to passing off had not been made out to the disclaimer that appeared in both the television advertisements and on all the printed material associated with the contest but elaborated on the issue in obiter. The trial judge acknowledged that the disclaimer that was displayed during the television commercials left something to be desired because it was displayed for about seven seconds and was against a background that made it difficult to read. However, the disclaimer was displayed prominently in bold print on all printed materials relating to the contest.[52]

 

The prominence to be given to a disclaimer must depend on the likelihood of a false impression being conveyed to the public if there is no disclaimer. There will undoubtedly be some situations where no disclaimer will be adequate. On the facts of the case, the trial judge observed that there was only a minimal likelihood that the television advertisements would create a false impression in the minds of the public that the National Hockey League endorsed the products of Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd. He concluded that had a disclaimer been necessary, it would have been sufficient to dispel any possible misapprehension having regard to the fact that the disclaimer was produced very clearly on the printed advertising materials for the contest.[53]

 

VIII. Conclusion

 

It is difficult to offer any definitive opinion as to whether Bill C-47 has successfully supplemented existing intellectual property rights given the dearth of jurisprudence both with respect to the efficacy of applying existing intellectual property rights in the context of ambush marketing, and with respect to the use of legislation in Olympic specific contexts. It may be asserted that Bill C-47 would not be regarded as a significant advance in the legal strategies available to address the harms allegedly caused by ambush marketing because its provisions so clearly mirror those of existing intellectual property rights but for the inclusion of the provision providing that in the plaintiff need not establish proof of irreparable harm in the context of applications for interim or interlocutory injunctions brought in actions pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of Bill C-47. The potential impact of this provision should not be understated for it is this single provision that may embolden official sponsors to commence actions against ambush marketers and to obtain meaningful relief at the outset of a harmful ambush marketing campaign.

 

By: Nancy A. Miller

Fogler, Rubinoff LLP