What would we do for entertainment without Ryanair?

[delwy]

Just got this interesting link to the latest Ryanair stunt. It looks like the big boss of Ryanair does not like IALPA! http://www.ialpa.net/

[Squealing Pig]

Astonishing!!:ugh:

[Dick Fisher]

The words sledgehammer and nut come to mind. Ridiculous!

[Globaliser]

Every person who criticises PPRuNe for "censorship", when Ryanair forces criticism of itself to be removed from this site, ought to be reminded of this!

[Say again s l o w l y]

What a waste of time..... but I suppose they are after a law suit that they have a chance of winning. They seem to have bu**ered every other one they've been involved in recently.

[Memetic]

Do the have the omnibus test of reasonableness in Eire?

If so I doubt any reasonable person would confuse IALPA with an airline or telecommunications company so a passing off case should fail.

[Jamie-Southend]

So if i wizz off to STN in the morning, take a picture of a Ryanair landing and give it to IALPA for inclusion onto their site, are they still going to be shouting ? :uhoh:

[bigdunc]

Got to love their latest anti easyJet 'bye bye Fleecy Jet' livery on one of the LPL based 738s.

Real classy.

[Ransman]

I am so glad I didn't join this company!

[Rev Thrust]

What happened to the "Ryanair lose another court case" thread? It originally started in Rumours and News, then got moved to "Airlines, Airports & Routes", and now that I've come back from a night out at a birthday celebration, I discover that an email notification of an update to that thread leads nowhere - except to a message saying that the thread address is no longer valid!

Confused... I hope I didn't do owt wrong (but I guess I'll find out if I did).

Someone mentioned censorship, earlier in this thread. What's going on?

Please... I'm new here... fill me in. If there are unutterable truths of which one cannot speak, please elucidate, cos I speak as I find (as long as its the truth), and I am therefore bound to get into trouble thereby, presumably.

[Boy]

Yes.... there are unutterable truths about Ryanair about which one cannot speak. Unfortunately nobody can tell you what they are (well, here that is).

But, when this thread is removed to an obscure corner of the site (sorry to regular readers of "Airlines, Airports & Routes") and then removed ... you will know that some of those truths have been uttered!

[triplespool]

In the past week or so, Ryan appear to be on some sort of crusade which on the face of it only has one goal to P*** everybody off. Including the workers and competition. I will jump ship as soon as the next offer arrives.

[perkin]

A cunning stunt?! ;)

[eidah]

In the past week or so, Ryan appear to be on some sort of crusade which on the face of it only has one goal to P*** everybody off. Including the workers and competition. I will jump ship as soon as the next offer arrives.
Yep that ryanairs biggest goal in life to p:mad: ss everyone off including its workers this is why they put on this planet because without them no one would have anything to complain about.

[Dan Winterland]

If Ryanair object to a picture of one of their aircraft with their trademark painted on it, surely they can't object to a picture of a 737 in one of special advertisement schemes. Or could they?

Go on IALPA, it's worth a punt! (pun intended!)

[Anti-ice]

The words 'it' and 'lost' come to mind ...............

[Liffy 1M]

There's only one special scheme 737-800 as far as I know (Boeing Dreamliner scheme), and it does have Ryanair titles and logo on the fin.

[B737NG]

Amazing what Energy is used to p*** everyone off. I asked myself often what happened in the past that MOL and his fellows are on that track. I meet a lot of Irish blokes who where reasonable, friendly, funny and lovely people. The show must go on that people talk. MOL and his followers will contribute in the future for shure. I am confident that community will be amazed what comes next. The show must go on.......

Where can I contribute to the IALPA? I still have bonds to the green Island....

Fly safe and land happy

NG

[Re-entry]

You guys just don't get it.
ALL publicity is good publicity so long as they spell your name right.
An old hollywood adage.

[Curious Pax]

They could use a pic of EI-CSC, assuming it is still in Cable & Wireless colours. A small black line blanking the little Ryanair titles should suffice!

[sky9]

The bit I liked was the letter from A & L Goodbody International Solicitors ,
I quote "in relation to the damage which is caused to the character and reputation of our clients trademark and to its business goodwill generally"

[Three Mile Final]

I find it quite staggering , not only that Ryanair want to pursue such an insignificant issue by spending good money but that they feel there is any likelihood of winning the litigtaion they obviouly threaten.

For somebody to be succesfully accused of making illegal or wrongful use of a trade mark, it would first have to be proven that they set out to deliberately misrepresent and to profit in some way by that misrepresentation etc.

However they do not appear to be doing any of that and are clearly only using something in the public domain.

Would Ryanair have any real possibility of sueing a newspapper for wrongful or inappropraite use of the Ryanair trademarks if they published a picture of an aircraft to illustrate a story ? I think not. I do not think IALPA have much to fear either ... other than a malicious law suit which would cost time, trouble and lots of money to defend. That s the only place the abuse of corporate power and funds could take this.

Can only think somebody in Ryanmair has nothing better to do and so perhaps that department should be slimmed down.

TMF

[Globaliser]

I find it quite staggering , not only that Ryanair want to pursue such an insignificant issue by spending good money but that they feel there is any likelihood of winning the litigtaion they obviouly threaten.To my mind, the possible alternative is even worse.

Ryanair may not feel that they there is any likelihood of them winning any litigation that they launch. But they may also feel - rightly - that the threat of litigation will make the other party do what they want, anyway. After all, Ryanair has got deep enough pockets that it could start litigation that it only has a 10% chance of winning, if the poorer and less powerful organisation at the other end cannot afford to take that 10% risk of losing and so for practical purposes must comply with a demand that is unlikely to have any valid legal force.

That, it seems to me, may be what underlies the repeated closure or deletion of threads here that are anti-Ryanair, when Ryanair make threats against PPRuNe. Many are quick to criticise Danny for "caving in", but the economic reality of threats from a deep-pocketed company may leave him with no choice.

Of course, there's a word to describe someone who demands that you do something when he has no right to demand it, but knows that you are going to comply anyway because you cannot risk the adverse consequences of the actions they're going to take if you don't comply. "Bully".

[alibaba]

I seem to remember a certain number of Tobacco companies using similar tactics in the nineties. :ouch:

Anyone that threatened to question the medical evidence that they provided by "their own" medical experts against independent evidence came in for some serious litigation issues. Every report that came to light about companies using certain chemicals to enhance addiction came up for legal bullying.

It is a cheap tactic used by large multi national companies for what RYR now is. Cheaper to use a legal team than trying to improve T + C 's.

Unfortunately any person, body and lets face it authority/ regulator (the I.. whatever it is?) that now question RYR or MOL's wishes face exactly the same type of persecution.

Be warned this thing that is RYR is getting to big for anybody to handle.

Roll on the CAA and the ANO. Let us see if they can do something? I wouldn't hold my breath though! :zzz: They have 3 engine transatlantic arguments to be getting on with.

[cwatters]

My understanding is that a photograph of a trademark may infinge copyright but generally only when there is a danger that the use of the photo may be considered "passing off". eg when the public might think the photo was produced by the copyright holder. Hardly likely in this caec given the nature of the website.

[Captain Chaos]

With Ryan Air shortly to own AerLingus and own the copyright on the shamrock thats two aircraft IALPA will have to censor on their web site!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)