He then makes obscure citations to the Code of Federal Regulations which simply govern agency practice and procedure.
Have any posters that claim to be IP attorney contributions to this thread cited any relevant federal code ? When I posted from the US code for the application of a trademark one of the IP attorneys asked me for the source of the code. Wouldn’t knowing what is in the code for the application of a trademark be fundamental knowledge for any IP attorney?
I am seeing personal opinion backed up with no substance apart from a comment such as I have been practicing law for so many years just believe me.
How do you think that attitude would go before a jury?
This feels like an underhanded insult leveled at me because I am not a attorney. My day job involves reading and practically applying regulations across the world often in time critical situations. I cannot go back to an office to mull over relevant facts before scratching together my thoughts. If I cannot apply those regulations correctly in a timely fashion it can result in loss of life. Myself and other a.net users are more representative of people that you will find on a jury, if you cannot convince us of what is actually stated in the regulations your legal opinion means little.
While governments debate and pass laws, it is up to the courts, and in this case a jury to decide how it is applied to a case.
I took the time to look up the relevant trademarks (and posted them), look up the class they applied to, look up the number of other companies that have flagship trademarks, and lookup other companies that have flagship services which AA is nit defending. For example Flagship Aerospace, Flagship Airlines, and Flagship Ballroom.
It’s downright insulting for comments like these and others that I am just throwing spaghetti, or suggesting just because I am not an IP attorney means I have zero credibility. The law is not smoke and mirrors, it is based on published rule and procedure.
Some of us have been around long enough to remember him arguing ad nauseam how the A346 was superior to the 77W, his airline had all the data to prove it, etc even as A346 sales had dried up and 77W sales exploded. It took his own airline buying the 77W and dumping the A346 after only 7 years for that argument to stop.
Yet another underhanded insults attacking me personally and not the discussing the topic of the thread. I don’t understand why people are attacking me, Is it because they are AA fans, hate DL ?
More than happy to discuss your false allegations via PM.
No court is going to dive to the detail of a particular subset of aircraft. The trademark covers, amongst other things, lounges, reservation services, etc.
Delta does not offer for sale a product or service with flagship in its name, their reservations service is not called Delta Flagship reservations etc, their lounge is not called Delta Flagship etc.
What one sees on a website especially at large companies like airlines is not a client server model, that sort of technology is far too prone to disruption and network delays for a global audience, they adopt cloud based products often supplied by third parties.
Some of the big IT providers in the field are Sabre and Amadeus. The planning, reservations, ticketing, day of operations, and analysis functions are often different software modules, and maybe nothing more than an API, and may involve multiple vendors (eg Sabre for planning and reservations and Amadeus for ticketing and day of operations).
Many areas of regulations fail to keep pace with technology, for example if Delta used the Sabre API for reservations, the actual content of what is rendered on a webpage is not part of the reservations system. It’s kept in a different database, ticketing can be another database, day of operations (check in) another. The whole system might be hosted on something like an Amazon Web Services, I.e. it’s not actually Delta rendering the web page (looking at the page source on Delta.com I see some apps are being hosted on Amazon EC2,,some others with Rackspace).
It will take 2-3 years for this to get before a jury, and each side will have to convince that cross section of the community who appear on the jury what the trademark scope is (I assume AA would challenge anyone who served in the military or retail due to their idea of what a flagship is). AA I assume will argue like many on this thread that any use of the term regardless of context is prevented by trademark. DL I will assume will argue it has only used the term as it’s generally used descriptively in the English language.
None of the Delta products they sell include the term Flagship “to describe premium air travel services for first and business class passengers“ (From AAs complaint).
And Delta has referred to its lounges as flagship....
You have taken my quote out of context, just like I exposed how they used a screenshot that was taken out of context.
This is what someone will actually see when booking on the Delta website, there is no product or service being sold that includes flagship. Where flagship appears that refers to the A350 which is their flagship aircraft type, something AA does not claim in their complaint to have a trademark over. If AA does claim to have a trademark of the use for flagship for an aircraft type I would be pleased to see the relevant text quoted.
D L X wrote:
My source is over a decade of practicing IP law, including registration of trademarks.
That is not a source, that is an opinion.
D L X wrote:
Your source is Google.
Not once have I quoted google as a source. The sources I have quoted on this thread include the USPTO (the trademark and classed), US Code, Lufthansa, Delta, the AA complaint, Seaport Hotel, and searches of the SEC and Delaware companies containing flagship.
D L X wrote:
Various people have told you over and over again what the law actually is, and you keep coming back to the same irrelevant stuff. At this point, I'm fine with letting you enjoy your ignorance.
All anyone is seeing from the various posters claiming to attorneys is their opinion, not the law. What is going to count in the end is what the jury’s collective opinion.
I haven't seen DLX contradict himself once. Perhaps you should provide some examples of this.
There have been multiple times, for example I provided the Lufthansa press release (and the link to the US Media Relations where it was published) where they said “Lufthansa adds flagship A350-900 to numerous North American destinations”and suggested this is the same way as Delta is using the flagship term. They replied that does not count as that was an overseas airline on an overseas website. I pointed out that that press release was issued by the Lufthansa US Media Relations in New a York, with the relevant US Address and Contact number on the press release.
They are also providing what I view as being deliberately misleading information in their posts , for example when demonstrating what a person booking on the AA website would see they posted
When demonstrating what a person booking a flight on Delta they provided this misleading except of a screenshot
When what would really be seen is like this, half truths cannot be summed to equal a fact.
Then they have claimed on one hand not to be attacking me personally, and at the same time saying “ I'm being aggressive with a certain pilot (who can defend himself) because he is spouting out ideas that are utterly contrary to law, such as saying Delta could sue AA for using the word "One" when selling one-way fares. That isn't a matter of opinion. The pilot was wrong.”
If the poster would only take a few moments to read the complaint by AA, they would understand the source of my comments. AA in their complaint did not refer to the Delta product as the trademarked Delta One Suite, they referred to it as “One Suite”.
Zeke, from where did you obtain your JD and what kind of law do you practice?
Where did I claim to have one ? and how is that relevant to the topic being discussed ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News