Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bangladesh United Ordered To Rebrand  
User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 9814 times:

Bangladesh's United Airways has been ordered by a court to re-brand itself and repaint itself. Case filed by the original United. I have always wondered why did they let this airline keep this brand forts long http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...shs-united-airways-to-repaint.html


The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOwleye From Netherlands, joined Feb 2006, 959 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 9666 times:

That's a victory against brand, copyright and intellectual property violation. Has "Air Franski" Transaero something to fear now?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © José Carlos Hernández lorenzo
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andreas Fietz



User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9772 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 9588 times:

Quoting Owleye (Reply 1):
Has "Air Franski" Transaero something to fear now?

No they don't. Those two airlines, even though showing minor similarities, they are totally recognizable as the airlines they each represent.

A388


User currently offlinesofianec From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 239 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9398 times:

UA's response is pretty stupid. Bangladeshi airline livery looks NOTHING like UA. What about LOT's new livery and TAROM then?

Quoting Owleye (Reply 1):
That's a victory against brand, copyright and intellectual property violation. Has "Air Franski" Transaero something to fear now?

OMG Where is USA where is Bangladesh. Strong-arm tactics, very disproportionate.

---



A350WARP
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9276 times:

Quoting sofianec (Reply 3):
UA's response is pretty stupid. Bangladeshi airline livery looks NOTHING like UA. What about LOT's new livery and TAROM then?

UA's problem was more with how the Bangladeshi airline marketed itself as being associated with Star and UA, not the livery.

Quote:

United Airways had "wrongly passed off their airline, airline services, and airline ticketing services as being those of - or associated or connected with, or authorised or approved by - United Airlines", said the firm.


User currently onlineASA From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9221 times:

I guess they wouldn't have been sued if they were merely a domestic airline. However, they have started flying in the region (KUL, BKK, DXB, etc) and are planning to start services to LHR and other places. That must have brought the big guns in action! 
Quoting sofianec (Reply 3):
OMG Where is USA where is Bangladesh. Strong-arm tactics, very disproportionate.

It is ... but it's possible that people who are not so much into airlines (like a-nutters ) may not understand the distinction and thus there might be some tiny-winy revenue loss somewhere!  


User currently offlinesq_ek_freak From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 1633 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9063 times:

Quoting ASA (Reply 5):
It is ... but it's possible that people who are not so much into airlines (like a-nutters ) may not understand the distinction and thus there might be some tiny-winy revenue loss somewhere!

What if, god forbid, there was some sort of mishap involving Bangladesh United? That's not good for United if people were misinformed/led to believe they were associated with United.

Besides, what the airline is advertising simply not the case - Bangladesh United has nothing to do with United, and as such should not be wrongly proporting itself to have ties to either UA or Star when none exist. Simple.



Keep Discovering
User currently offlineBurner71 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9027 times:

It is your duty as a patent, or trademark owner to pursue all perceived infringements.

User currently onlineASA From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8899 times:

Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 6):
What if, god forbid, there was some sort of mishap involving Bangladesh United? That's not good for United if people were misinformed/led to believe they were associated with United.

Good point there, didn't think of this one!   

The loss to the brand image (due to obvious misinformation) and lost revenue would be too much in this case. And especially, for a Bangladesh-based airline, the high probability or fear of such an untoward incident is conceivable.

[Edited 2011-06-28 09:04:38]

User currently offlinesofianec From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 239 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8753 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 4):
UA's problem was more with how the Bangladeshi airline marketed itself as being associated with Star and UA, not the livery.

If that WAS the case - then I totally understand the ruling however such violations were only alleged/implied by UA's lawyers. I did not see any evidence whatsoever that United Airways BD Ltd ever mentiones anything re Star Alliance nor UA links or affiliations. Where? Not on their planes, not on their website, not anywhere.

Simply because their name is similar is idiotic and way too far-fetched. I would appeal that ruling to the bitter end if I was them. Their logo/livery looks ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like UA. In fact it's colorful and fun.

Soon these big american companies will patent/copyright the entire English language.

---



A350WARP
User currently offlineBurner71 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8691 times:

Quoting sofianec (Reply 9):
Simply because their name is similar is idiotic and way too far-fetched. I would appeal that ruling to the bitter end if I was them. Their logo/livery looks ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like UA. In fact it's colorful and fun.

Soon these big american companies will patent/copyright the entire English language.

I am sure there is much more to this than what you are perceiving.
In order to have a ruling in their favor, they had to prove possible trademark infringements.

Unless you were in the court room or have access to the filing papers, than you are just making assumptions.


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8409 times:

Quoting sofianec (Reply 9):
Simply because their name is similar is idiotic and way too far-fetched. I would appeal that ruling to the bitter end if I was them. Their logo/livery looks ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like UA. In fact it's colorful and fun.

It's not idiotic at all for the reasons given in this thread. If something safety-related happened with this airline that made major headlines, a lot of the public could draw their own conclusions that United Airways = United Airlines, regardless of where it happened or what the livery looks like. It's a big deal and that's why these "big American companies" spend money to protect their trademarks. It's not about ego, it's about public perception, which in a service industry is EVERYTHING.


User currently offlinesofianec From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 239 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8366 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 11):
It's not about ego, it's about public perception, which in a service industry is EVERYTHING.

We get it - they are BIGGER. For all it's worth accident-wise United Airways (of Bangladesh) have a clean accident record. Besides who would mistake the rainbow-painted colorful livery with the boring corporate UA/CO hybrid ever.

To me it's about Ego all the way. We are BIG and we are called UNITED (in capitals) therefore that word is ours to use.

You have to agree that liveries of the two companies are completely different. Who would ever think it's the same company.

---



A350WARP
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25077 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8316 times:

This has nothing to do with livery.

Its has everything to do with intellectual property rights and trademarks, namely utilization and marketing of the United name and association with the airline or its Star Alliance partners.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinePillowTester From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8247 times:

Quoting Owleye (Reply 1):
Has "Air Franski" Transaero something to fear now?

If Transaero was instead named "Air France" then yes, they would.



...said Dan jubilantly.
User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2602 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8208 times:

Wouldn't the name "United" in the local language (Bengali) or a variant of that word be a good name?
Google translator said it's spelled Abicchinna in latin letters.
Do passengers give a lot of thought if the name of an airline isn't in English?



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlinerdh3e From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1651 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8208 times:

Quoting sofianec (Reply 12):
Besides who would mistake the rainbow-painted colorful livery with the boring corporate UA/CO hybrid ever.

To me it's about Ego all the way. We are BIG and we are called UNITED (in capitals) therefore that word is ours to use.

You have to agree that liveries of the two companies are completely different. Who would ever think it's the same company.

Could you identify the livery differences in recent crashes? Many planes are utterly recognizable as an airplane after a serious crash. This can be a serious worry to a company. News outlets are RARELY diligent when it comes to facts (see the DL hates Jew's news of this week). What makes you think they wouldn't actually report this as a UA affiliate or even a UA flight?

If you google simply "United Airways" you won't find anything except United Airlines. I scrolled the first 10 pages and found nothing but UA except one reference to United Airways by a hotel company that was actually referring to UA's Mileage plus. SO you could understand that it would be troublesome to seperate the two.

BTW saying that United Airways BD has a "clean safety record" is basically meaningless because they've only been flying since 2007. And their total historical Ops are probably less than one day of UA's ops.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25077 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8149 times:

Think about it this way..

Try to start a little IT business called Bangladesh Apple Computers, and see what happens.

Trademark infringement occurs when things like marks, products or services are similar to an existing trademark owned by another party, especially when they both are in similar sectors.

There likelihood of that someone might think that Bangladesh Apple Computer is affiliated with the Cupertino, CA based brand instead.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineBurner71 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8108 times:

Think about it for a moment.
They went into the airline business using UNITED as their name.

They knew exactly what they were doing.

Like opening a burger joint called McDonalds


User currently offlinecedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8088 posts, RR: 54
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8075 times:

Quoting sofianec (Reply 3):
UA's response is pretty stupid. Bangladeshi airline livery looks NOTHING like UA.

Yeah but "United" sounds a LOT like "United".



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1634 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7927 times:

It is interesting to note that on their own website background page, United (BD) twice refers to itself as "United Airlines (BD) Limited" and only once as the correct "United Airways (BD) Limited." See the link below:

http://www.uabdl.com/background.html

I found that with about 30 seconds of browsing their website. If they are careless about interchanging the two in other contexts, then that makes UA's case even stronger. Regardless, this is clearly not a case of a bigger company prevailing over a smaller one in some kind of show of corporate power, but rather of an extremely old brand (the UAL name was first used in 1931) prevailing over a fairly new brand (born in 2007).

Major corporations with a presence in virtually every market worldwide (whether it be directly or via codeshare partners in the case of an airline) have every right to protect their copyright. In this case, it is important to consider that both airlines fly to some of the same airports, so UA is directly faced by an airline essentially using its name to do business in the same place.

[Edited 2011-06-28 13:34:39]

User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4368 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7883 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 23):
Major corporations with a presence in virtually every market worldwide (whether it be directly or via codeshare partners in the case of an airline) have every right to protect their copyright.

A person has not merely a right, but an affirmative DUTY to enforce the trademark or copyright and protect it from infringement and misuse. Failure to do so can result in loss of the copyright or trademark.

[Edited 2011-06-28 13:45:07]


Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineBurner71 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7896 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 24):
A person has not merely a right, but an affirmative DUTY to enforce the trademark or copyright and protect it from infringement and misuse. Failure to do so can result in loss of the copyright or trademark.

exactly

protect it or lose it


User currently offlinetp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 205 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7860 times:

I guess my desire to start Bangladesh British Airways will have to be rethought. I wonder if Bangladesh Air France would work?

Suggestions?


User currently offlinepnd100 From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7898 times:

Quoting tp1040 (Reply 26):
I guess my desire to start Bangladesh British Airways will have to be rethought. I wonder if Bangladesh Air France would work?

Suggestions?

Bangladesh Transaero?


25 Grid : It's not just about the livery. It's not really just about being the big company, although that can help notify the infringing company that someone o
26 Post contains images gr8circle : That's what patents and copyrights are all about, right? There's nothing idiotic about United's response.....they have the rights over using the name
27 KFlyer : It is all about the brand. A brand is a living thing, and could very well decide the fate of a company. That is why companies do rebrand. It should no
28 ajhYXE : Consider that the only thing in common between the PMUA livery and the new (CO) livery is the word "United". When passengers flying "United" arrive at
29 Carls : So I can open a USB bank corporation and use different logos and different fond and that William make my "bank" different to the original USB? This i
30 Post contains images poz2brs : Perhaps they could re-brand the airline to Continental Bangladesh. After all, nobody is using that name anymore
31 gr8circle : I know this was a lighter comment, but just to make a point, this would also be an infringement.....post merger, the CO brand still belongs to the co
32 OzarkD9S : Did China United ever have this problem? Or China Southwest? Or China Northwest? Or Delta Air in Belgium? Or Skywest in Australia?
33 ridgid727 : My wife is an intellectual property (Trademark) attorney. United had to prove liklihood of confusion in the brands, which creates trademark infringem
34 Post contains images ASA : hahaha ... good one! Didn't think this thread would take off like this! But this was a good discussion on what copyright infringement is about. I hav
35 exFATboy : If the airline name was actually "Bangladesh United", the planes said that on the side, and itineraries/tickets/etc. all said "Bangladesh United", no
36 LGWGate49 : Doesn't Etihad mean 'United' in Arabic? Whoa, watch out Hogan, Smisek could be coming to get ya!
37 Burner71 : the word "Etihad" means Union....variations of the word mean slightly different words...."United" from the name of the country United Arab Emirates is
38 pnd100 : الإتحاد‎, ʼal-ʻitiħād does mean united in Arabic but the trademark from the UAE is Etihad, not United. Bangladesh's United Airways did n
39 UA772IAD : Lots of companies do it (though I'm not condoning the practice... it is simply protecting your brand). Starbucks made headlines in the US for crushin
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Two Men Arrested After United Flight To AMS posted Mon Aug 30 2010 15:43:20 by ual747
United Returns To Anchorage posted Wed Jan 13 2010 01:03:03 by MAH4546
United Airlines To Lay Off 50 O'Hare Workers posted Thu Jan 7 2010 12:55:04 by KarlB737
United Rights To Serve India Via Asia? posted Wed Jan 6 2010 09:11:54 by FlyDreamliner
United Airlines To Buy Both 787 And A350 (#2) posted Tue Dec 8 2009 22:33:47 by Diamond
United Airlines To Buy Both 787 And A350 posted Mon Dec 7 2009 19:45:42 by AeroPiggot
United Close To 787 Or A350 Order posted Thu Nov 19 2009 19:44:08 by Zone1
United - Mokulele To Interline posted Tue Jul 14 2009 11:54:46 by LAXintl
Air Canada Ordered To Pay Doctor $1000 posted Fri Jul 10 2009 06:35:43 by YZFOO7F
United Looks To Further Defer SFO-CAN Start Up posted Wed Mar 25 2009 08:06:52 by LAXintl