It imposes criminal penalties and, unlike common law criminal actions, it is not necessary to prove that the person charged had the intention to do the prohibited conduct. A sporting identity who was used to endorse a product could come into conflict with this section unless the advertisement was truthful as to what the sports identity said. The advertisers could not use a prominent person who had not endorsed their product - Kieren Perkins sand Telstra where Perkins who had no commercial link with Telstra was used in a way suggesting he used and endorsed the Telstra product. We hear a lot about this form of marketing in connexion with the Olympic games. It is a form of parasitic conduct where a company seeks to obtain a free ride by associating with a prestige event but where it has no connexion as a sponsor.
Olympic sponsors pay a lot of money for that status and the marketing advantages that come from it.
In relation to the Olympics and the marketing aura it has there is regulation of the use of the Olympic symbols. See Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987. Under section 7 the Australian Olympic Committee has a monopoly over the symbol. It could of course, as it does, license the use of the symbol to somebody who is prepared to pay. That person then has rights that can be protected under the Act.