New name for Jetstar????

[bombshell]

Will Qantas have to rethink the name of their baby? They could be sued for using a name already in use!

Read this (http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/notams04/jets0421.htm)

BTW this appears elswhere on Pprune in "Airlines, Airports & Routes", but considering the location I thought it may be of interest to some in this forum.

[Traffic]

Judging from the latest political stoushes back in OZ, plagiarism is front and centre.

Now it seems it is not just political speeches but commercial IP that is getting plagiarised.

An old Bob Newhart skit pushed the view that if you put enough monkeys in front of enough typewriters, eventually they will reproduce all the world's great novels.

In this case, however, the logo and total design concept, is too close to be a coincidence.

At the very least, GD should get his money back from the agency that came up with the logo and design concepts. He could then pass that on to his new found friends at Jetstar International and everyone wins...except the plagiarists at the agency of course.

[bombshell]

With the launch of Jetstar (oz) looming up, it might be quicker and cheaper to just "pay off" or buy Jetstar International Airlines. It's a bit late to re-brand!

[chockchucker]

Ooops! That's a bit of a googly. It will be interesting to see how GD and all those amazing marketing people extracate themselves from this one.

One way or another, this little stuff looks like costing QF big. Wonder if they (GD and the Board) will persue those responsible for this little oversight as voraciuosly as they would a pilot or engineer for a much less costly stuff-up?

Me thinks not as the bean counters and marketing guru's who seem to be a law unto themselves in airlines these days appear to not have to answer to anyone. Not even to the people who matter most these days, (no, not the passengers or staff) the shareholders.

[itchybum]

Admittedly I did not read the entire article but it (the original Jetstar) looks like some kind of virtual airline for super-nerds to play with. I can't quite grasp the entire concept of this but it is sounding like something VERY sad and would put one in serious need of a life.

...unless there's something more to it I haven't seen??

[Kaptin M]

Be that as it may, itchy, it would appear that the name JetStar was taken some 4 years ago, and copyrighted.
As they state"We tried to call their attention to this problem several times, but their response is nothing short of reckless because they don't seem to mind trampling on other's intellectual property rights even though Qantas asks you to respect their rights..........The lawsuit filed in United States District Court lists causes of actions as, Copyright Infringement, Trademark Infringement, Illegal Cybersquatting, Conversion and Lanham Act Unfair Competition.Could be worth quite a bit of money for the LEGAL owners.

[Sheep Guts]

This is really a laugh isnt it? This FLIGHT SIM AIRLINE all be it an internet gaming thing , may be worthy of a going to litigation, " the life blood of the USA". But I suppose this guy is just sniffing for some cash, so undoubtbly if this continues further that Jetstar the Real Airline may have to go out of court settlement to keep this Simulated Airlines CEO Happy. :O



Sheep

[FlyBoyMitch]

A laugh? Maybe if it were funny.

A virtual airline is a fictitious airline, the fictitious name is copyrighted. Maybe someone should look up how much it cost Hollywood to use the name Qantas in the movie "Rainman"

Better yet, ask George Lucas why he sued the rap group 2LiveCrew for copyright infringement when one of the group members called himself "Luke Skywalker." After all, Luke Skywalker is a fictitious name. Can't anyone make money with it?

ahhhh, NOPE!

This guy made up this airline, and he copyrighted it. That means he owns the name and its association with the Airline industries. As Qantas is finding out.

It is no different then the sitcom "The Simpsons" sueing for copyright infringement to the man who tried to make and sell "Duff Beer"

Nuff Said

Foo

[Watchdog]

You are forgetting something....
the virtual jetstar obviously didnt register their trademark etc in OZ. What good is court action in the US against brand names in another country? Unless jetstar wants to use their brand in the US the virtual jetstar don't have a case. Methinks the court action is also virtual too! (like the whole article) :D

[Pimp Daddy]

You may be right there Watchdog, but they have registered a domain name in the US, www.jetstar.com

US domain name, US trademark - thin, but it's a go.

[HAMO]

Dont see what the big deal is .. an airlines name isnt just restricted to one country. Have a look at Skywest in WA for example, and there is a Skywest in the US

No problems there

[scud_runner]

Not sure the difference, but QF's Jetstar isn't an airline it is Jetstar Airways if you look at their website. Is there any difference between the two??

[FlyBoyMitch]

You are forgetting something....

No, actually I am not forgetting anything. In the old world, yes he would have to register the name in OZ.

But, its not called the World Wide Web for nothing. The world is getting smaller and its the internet thats shrinking it. Qantas and the rest of the airline industry is going to have to deal with conflicts regarding name branding on the internet.

Mitch

[The Voice]

Playing devils advocate here for a mo:

I would be very surprised if a company like QF would indeed take on anything name wise without ALL appropriate checks as to patent, copyright etc etc having been completed.

Once having established if there was any chance of it being taken to litigation, a risk assessment would have been completed and a logical business decision made.

Now, either there is a problem with the original patent, copyright or whatever was supposedly taken out to protect the alleged originator of the name etc, OR .. one wasn't in fact taken out at all that protects the alleged originator.

Intellectual Property Law is an emerging entity (like all facets really, just it is a lot newer) .. and not everything is as clear cut and dried as you may think.

If there is a dispute, something as simple as in which country's court will the presumed hearing into the matter take place will need to take place BEFORE anything is done in relation to the alleged breach of copyright or patent or whatever it is.

(as an aside, a govt. department in this neck of the woods DID get it's fingers rather badly burned by something similar happening within the last couple of years .. a consultant company discovered something pretty on the internet, fluffed around the edges a smidge .. offered it to the client department/they accepted it .. re-branded everything, only for the deception to be found out after all the name change blah blah blah had been completed .. set the govt back a cool $1m min. to change mid point)

and Watchdog .. a valid point indeed .. there is a particular (now) oz wide franchise restaurant chain that has it's humble beginnings very much likened to the US versions.

The original US owner was somewhat miffed when it was discovered the opening of the chain here .. and IF it could ever get to court reference the breach of copyright .. THEN the franchisor here would worry about it .. it's only been 13 or thereabouts years now since that all started .. and I don't think it has ever seen the light of day ..

[slice]

Ok then - what about

DICKSTAR

That would be a marketing coup to have Australia's own aviation messiah rolled out to spruik for crush class travel.

:}

[scud_runner]

After having a look at the "virtual jetstars" website one only has to wonder how come QF's Jetstar 'coincidently' has a similar Logo. Hmmmmm I wonder if the bloke who came up with the name just so happens to be a "frustrated pilot" who is into these sort of hobbies and happened to flog the name. The similarity is a bit close for me to think that it is accidental. Maybe Mediawatch needs to be put on this!:}