A commercial and intellectual property law briefing from Mayet & Associates Inc.
The 2026 FIFA World Cup™ is under way, running from 11 June to 19 July across the United States, Canada and Mexico. For the first time the tournament has expanded to 48 teams, and for football followers across Southern Africa there is an added reason to watch: South Africa has returned to the finals for the first time since 2002. The appetite among Basotho consumers is real and where there is consumer attention, there is commercial opportunity.
That opportunity comes with a legal catch. The World Cup is one of the most aggressively protected commercial properties on earth. FIFA and its official sponsors pay, and are paid, enormous sums on the strict understanding that the association between brand and tournament is exclusive. Businesses that are not official partners are not shut out of the conversation, but they must understand precisely where the line sits. This briefing sets out how the line is drawn under Lesotho law, where the cross-border risks lie for Basotho businesses, and how to build a campaign that captures the moment without inviting a legal challenge.
Key takeaways
- You may market around football. You may not market the World Cup. This single distinction governs almost every decision a non-sponsor brand will make over the coming weeks.
- Lesotho has no dedicated “protected event” statute. Protection here flows from the Industrial Property Order 1989 (registered trade marks) and Roman-Dutch common law (passing off and unlawful competition), a different toolkit from South Africa’s.
- The cross-border risk is the real risk. A campaign that is lawful in Maseru can still attract enforcement if it reaches South African consumers, where the Merchandise Marks Act offers far stronger event protection.
- Consumer impression decides the question, not your intentions. Liability turns on whether the ordinary consumer thinks you are connected to the tournament not on whether you meant to create that impression.
- Social media multiplies risk. Real-time posts, event hashtags and match-timed promotions are the most common modern source of unauthorised-association claims.
The one rule that matters: the sport versus the spectacle
The most useful way to think about World Cup marketing is to separate two things that feel identical in the excitement of a tournament but are entirely distinct in law.
The first is football: the game itself, the culture around it, the shared experience of watching, the pride of supporting a team. None of this belongs to anyone. Any business in Lesotho is free to celebrate football, screen matches for customers, and tap into the national mood.
The second is the World Cup: a specific, organised, commercially exploited event with a name, a set of marks, a roster of paying sponsors and an owner that protects all of it. This does not belong to your business unless you have paid for the right or obtained a licence.
Almost every dispute in this area comes down to a brand that started in the first category and drifted into the second. A poster celebrating “the beautiful game” is safe. The same poster with a trophy graphic, a fixture list and the words “World Cup” is not.
How the law protects the tournament in Lesotho
Lesotho’s protective framework is narrower and more conventional than the special-purpose regimes some countries enact for major events. There is no Lesotho statute that designates the World Cup as a “protected event” and criminalises association with it. Instead, three established sources of law do the work.
1. Registered trade marks under the Industrial Property Order 1989
Trade marks, patents and industrial designs in Lesotho are governed by the Industrial Property Order No. 5 of 1989 (as amended by the Industrial Property (Amendment) Act 1997). FIFA and its commercial partners maintain extensive trade mark portfolios covering event names, the official emblem, mascots, trophy imagery, slogans and tournament-specific wording. Where such marks are registered and protected in Lesotho, unauthorised commercial use is an infringement that the proprietor may pursue in the High Court of Lesotho, which the Order designates as the competent court.
A practical caution applies to enforcement of international filings. Although Lesotho is a member of the Paris Convention and ARIPO and is a signatory to the Banjul and Madrid Protocols, the national legislation has not been comprehensively amended to give domestic effect to those Protocols. The enforceability in Lesotho of marks registered only through international or regional routes is therefore not free from doubt, and proprietors are generally best protected by a domestic Lesotho registration. For a business assessing risk, the safer assumption is that the major event marks are, or can readily be, protected here.
2. Passing off
Lesotho applies Roman-Dutch common law, under which passing off is actionable. Passing off occurs where a trader misrepresents, expressly or by implication, that its goods, services or business are connected with, endorsed by or licensed by another, in a way that is likely to deceive or confuse the public and cause damage. This is the common-law engine of most “unauthorised association” complaints. A brand does not need to copy a logo to be liable; it is enough that the overall presentation conveys a false message of official connection.
3. Unlawful competition
The broader common-law delict of unlawful competition captures conduct that falls outside trade mark infringement and passing off but is nonetheless wrongful, including a competitor unfairly trading off the reputation and commercial drawing power that another party has lawfully built. A deliberate attempt to harvest the goodwill of an event one has not paid to be associated with can, on the right facts, be characterised in these terms.
Taken together, these three sources mean that even without a bespoke “anti-ambush” statute, a Lesotho court has the tools to restrain a campaign that crosses the line. An interdict is the most likely and most immediate remedy.
The cross-border trap: when Lesotho law is not the only law that applies
For most Basotho businesses, the more serious exposure is not domestic at all. Lesotho sits within the Common Monetary Area and is economically interwoven with South Africa: advertising spills across the border, retailers operate on both sides, broadcasts originate in South Africa, and social media respects no boundary. A campaign conceived for a Maseru audience will very often reach South African consumers.
That matters because South Africa protects major events far more aggressively than Lesotho does. South Africa’s Merchandise Marks Act 17 of 1941 empowers the relevant Minister to designate a sporting or other event as a “protected event,” after which the law prohibits the unauthorised use of a trade mark in a way that derives special promotional benefit from the event, a provision aimed squarely at ambush marketing. The 2010 FIFA World Cup hosted in South Africa was designated under this regime, and enforcement was vigorous.
The practical lesson is straightforward. A Basotho business should ask not only “is this lawful in Lesotho?” but also “where will this campaign actually be seen, and whose law applies there?” If the answer includes South Africa, through cross-border broadcast, retail footprint or simply an untargeted social media post. The more demanding South African standard becomes the real constraint. (The South African position should be confirmed against the current statute and any regulations before relying on it in a specific matter.)
What ambush marketing actually looks like
“Ambush marketing” is the label for campaigns that seek the benefit of association with an event without paying for it. It is not automatically unlawful, clever, lawful marketing around an event is legitimate and common, but it sits on a spectrum, and four recurring tactics push it toward the unlawful end:
- Intrusion into the event space — gaining visibility in or around stadiums, broadcasts or official zones, including the placement of branded spectators.
- Creating an impression of association — wording, imagery or campaign “feel” that suggests official sponsorship or endorsement.
- Using protected intellectual property — deploying event names, emblems, mascots, trophy imagery or slogans without authority.
- Falling foul of jurisdiction-specific rules — breaching a designated-event or special-measures regime in a country whose law applies to the campaign.
The further a campaign moves into these categories, and the stronger the overall impression of an official link, the higher the risk.
Green light, red light: a practical guide
The table below distils the position for a non-sponsor brand operating in or from Lesotho.
| Generally safe | High risk |
|---|---|
| Celebrating football as a sport and the energy around it | Using the event name, emblem, trophy imagery or official slogans |
| Screening matches for customers in your venue | Running competitions or giveaways tied to fixtures, results or “predict the score” mechanics |
| Expressing general national or regional pride and support | Stating or implying you are an official sponsor, partner or supplier |
| Featuring a footballer as an individual ambassador | Referring to a player’s participation in the tournament, their matches or opponents |
| Football-themed décor, menus or in-store activations | Match-timed “real-time” posts using event hashtags in a promotional context |
| Internal staff or customer viewing events | Any visual “mash-up” flags plus a ball plus a date, that reads as the event |
A useful self-test runs through every grey-area decision: would an ordinary consumer come away thinking this brand is connected to the tournament? If yes, treat it as red.
The grey zone and how courts read it
Some choices are neither plainly safe nor plainly unlawful, and these are where most disputes are won or lost. Timing a campaign to coincide with a marquee match, releasing player content at peak public interest, or running influencer activity during the tournament can each tip an otherwise neutral message into the territory of perceived association. The guiding question for these cases is whether the campaign is, in substance, trying to behave like an official sponsor. If it is, caution is warranted.
The way courts approach this is instructive, and a few decisions from comparable common-law jurisdictions illustrate the consistent reasoning, even though they are not binding in Lesotho:
- In a 2009 South African matter, the Pretoria High Court restrained the sale of soccer-themed lollipops marketed around the 2010 tournament. The product never used the words “World Cup,” but the combination of soccer imagery and national-flag elements was held to create an indirect association with the event. The lesson: subtle visual cues, judged collectively, can be enough.
- An Australian appellate decision concerning a telecommunications “I Go to Rio” campaign reached a similar conclusion in the Olympic context. Without using official Olympic branding, the campaign was found to convey a misleading message of connection. Again, the court looked at the overall impression rather than any single word.
- A long-standing United States Supreme Court authority confirms that some event-related words can be protected so strongly that their commercial use is prohibited outright, regardless of context.
The common thread is that the legal test is not a literal reading of the words used. Courts assess the overall impression, visual elements, timing and context together and liability can arise even where nothing explicit is said, if the campaign is perceived as trading off the event’s reputation and value.
A pre-launch checklist for Basotho brands
Before a World Cup-season campaign goes live, work through the following:
- Strip the event references. Remove the event name, year-plus-football combinations, emblems, trophy graphics and official slogans. Keep the focus on football and on fans.
- Audit the visuals. A flag, a ball and a date placed together can read as the event even with no words. View the creative as a consumer would, not as its designer.
- Check player content. An ambassador may appear as themselves; they should not be presented as a tournament participant, and the campaign should not reference specific matches or opponents.
- Quarantine the promotions. Competitions and giveaways linked to fixtures or results are among the highest-risk mechanics. Decouple any promotion from the tournament’s outcomes.
- Map the audience. Identify every jurisdiction the campaign will reach, especially South Africa, and apply the most demanding applicable standard, not the most convenient one.
- Discipline the social feed. Brief the team running real-time posts. Event hashtags and match-timed promotional content are the modern frontline of unauthorised-association claims.
- Take advice on anything borderline. A short pre-launch legal review is far cheaper than a withdrawn campaign, an interdict, or the reputational cost of being publicly called out.
Conclusion
The World Cup is a genuine commercial opportunity for Lesotho businesses, and the law does not require brands to sit it out. What it requires is discipline about a single distinction: celebrate the sport, not the spectacle. The strongest campaigns this season will be the ones that capture the energy of football and the pride of the region without reaching for what belongs to FIFA and its sponsors. Where a campaign sits in the grey zone and many of the most creative ones will, a brief legal check before launch is the most cost-effective protection a business can buy.
How we can help. Mayet & Associates Inc. advises businesses in Lesotho and South Africa on trade mark protection, advertising and marketing compliance, and intellectual property disputes. If you are planning a campaign this World Cup season, or you have received a complaint about one, we can review the creative, assess the cross-border exposure and act quickly where enforcement is threatened. Contact our Maseru office to arrange a consultation.
This article is provided for general information and does not constitute legal advice. The law is summarised at a high level and may change; the South African statutory position in particular should be verified against current legislation before it is relied upon. Specific situations should be assessed on their own facts. For advice on a particular matter, please consult a legal practitioner.
Frequently asked questions
Can a Lesotho business mention the World Cup at all in its advertising? Referring to the tournament by name or using its marks in a commercial context is high risk and should be avoided unless you are an official sponsor or have a licence. You can, however, freely market around football generally. The game, the culture and the fans, without naming the event.
Is ambush marketing illegal in Lesotho? There is no Lesotho statute that bans ambush marketing as such, and not all ambush marketing is unlawful. But a campaign that misrepresents an official connection can be restrained under the common law of passing off or unlawful competition, and use of protected marks can be pursued as trade mark infringement under the Industrial Property Order 1989.
Can I run a competition where customers predict match scores? Promotions tied to fixtures, results or tournament outcomes are among the most likely to be challenged, because they directly leverage the event’s commercial value. A safer approach is a football-themed promotion with no link to specific matches or the tournament itself.
We only advertise in Lesotho, why does South African law matter? Because campaigns rarely stay within one border. Broadcasts, retail footprints and especially social media routinely reach South African consumers, and South Africa’s event-protection regime is significantly stronger than Lesotho’s. If your campaign will be seen there, that standard may apply.
Can we feature a famous footballer in our campaign? Yes, as an individual ambassador. The risk arises when the campaign presents the player in connection with the tournament, referring to their participation, their matches or their opponents. Keep the focus on the person, not the event.