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"

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

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".

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.

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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)