Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13754 posts, RR: 17 Posted (13 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4231 times:
Virgin Blue does not have permission to use the Virgin Blue name outside of Australia.
Virgin Blue confirmed that the airline cannot fly outside Australia without the consent of Virgin Atlantic - 49% owned by Singapore Airlines Limited.
Singapore Airlines made sure the clause was in the contract in December 2002 (when the former bought 49% of Virgin Atlantic Holdings) to avoid confusion of the two airlines using the same word in their names.
Virgin Blue CEO David Huttner is in Singapore this week. He was there in part "to see if there is any way of seeking approval for us to use that name or if there is any other way to go about it."
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13754 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (13 years 2 days ago) and read 4224 times:
Information was gathered from the above hyperlinked webpage. Full information can be viewed by clicking the above hyperlinked webpage. Information was rephrased and not copied and pasted unlike others with the exception of quotes
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4533 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 days ago) and read 4213 times:
If SIA owns only 49% of Virgin and Branson owns 51%, then SIA doesn't hold enough votes to override a Branson decision. If Virgin Blue can't operate outside of Australia due to it's name, why not change the name for your international services to Virgin Blue International or do some kind of name game?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
Oz777 From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 521 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4044 times:
In fact the agreement relates to the use of the "Virgin" brand in countries where SQ has International services, not the pure use of "Virgin Blue".
It is not a matter of Branson owing more shares in VA, but a recognition that SQ has a substantial interest in the "Virgin" brand in relation to air transportation. Use by another airline, in which SQ has no interest, of the "Virgin" brand, typeface or colours, would be deemed to be "passing-off" in legal terms. This is a part of International Trade Mark/Copyright Law and is jealously guarded by the owners/licensees of the relevant 'Brand' or Trademark (Ask a few people who have used 'American' or 'Olympic' in their titles and branding and have been pursued by planeloads of lawyers).
BD1959 From Australia, joined Oct 2002, 450 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3962 times:
I'm not convinced that Branson would want to use the "Virgin Blue" name outside of Australia for a number of reasons:
1) The branding of Virgin Blue on red planes is a very Australian joke (and bloody ugly too if you ask me!)
2) The Virgin Blue brand is synonymous with LCC - think VB, think no inflight service (unless you want to fork out for inflated priced snacks)
3) VB have grown very successfully domestically on point-to-point services rather than an integrated network. This does not sit well with International Travel.
My guess is that we could expect to see a "Virgin Pacific" rather than either "Virgin Blue International" or "Pacific Star" - I guess that the use of Virgin in this title is the sticking point with SIA.
QantasAirways From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1280 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3756 times:
That's extremely interesting that SIA wouldn't want DJ to use its name outside Australia - and perhaps a good thing.
My Virgin Blue experiences wouldn't guarantee my favour of an internation flight with them. Perhaps if the international flight was short, but this is difficult as australia is quite isolated.
I certainly would not choose a budget airline like Virgin Blue over Singapore Airlines, Qantas, Australian Airlines etc. etc. etc.
I think it would be better anyhow to use a new name, though, I can say that at this point in time I certainly would not fly DJ internationally