AOPA and RAAus in Dispute over Slogan

The statement from RA-Aus said nothing about why this had to be done. As ideas go it would rate about the same as cementing rabbit holes in my opinion.

 

 

What will happen I am sure is that RAAus will see error in their ways and offer the use of the term free of any charge to AOPA and then all is forgiven and everyone will go on their merry way...however RAAus members will wear the costs of stupidity yet again...anyone got $10 on that bet

 

 

Why does the AOPA object? They can use it for nothing, can't they?

But flying schools can,t,and will only addmore fees, even to raa members if they teach and have a little school with only one plane and more costs and more costs , so it then goes down the chain , as in , more fees for students ,students stop flying because it,s too expensive,,flying school closes because of costs etc so students then will have to travel further to train adding even more costs...………………….RAA has killed itself...………..So to use the freedom to fly in some advertising as in :Now is the time to experience the "freedom to fly 'call Joes flying school 555335533324433...……………….etc etc etc ,,,every one who earns a living from that school as it is a for profit school , and they have only said ''nonprofit''', slimy shitheads from monke down...……….

 

 

By having it trade marked, the phrase has lost its essence, or whatever you want to call it, now. RAAus management have already used the phrase to promote themselves and a flying school close to their heart, and possibly wallet, on a Facebook post.

 

 

The CEO absolutely deserves a pay rise for the added tasks and responsibility of enforcing the IP.

 

 

Begs the question that was just asked in our hangar - yes more people are talking about this than a RecAus staffers and AOPA staffers think - that question being “ just how much other money is being wasted registering names, dynamic ribbons, by lines and phrases by RecAus”....

 

Who would want to use the phrase “Clear mind - Clear Prop” - but I bet that RecAus money has been spent to register this and many more.....

 

 

It’s not good enough to say only a few members are vocal about this. Yes a few members comment on Forums but I’m sure RecAus know the discussions off Forums is what counts.

Quite a few negative comments on RAAus Facebook page already from members.

 

 

I tried to contact RecAus Board members in Victoria and Qld and I was told by those I spoke to that they will not discuss this matter. They have been told via email from the CEO and Chairperson to refrain from comment as the matter will be in the hands of RecAus staffers and legal moving forward.

 

I’m glad I’m not on the RecAus Board, as this matter, if it ends up in Court will see the end of RecAus financially.

 

AOPA Australia, AOPA USA and both countries members will no doubt put up a fight and dollars.

 

Yesterday I heard key AOPA members whom are ‘financially able’ discussing supporting AOPA’s potential Court case. It’s clear AOPA members see this a a personal attack on AOPA and them as members. They wonder “what’s next” to come AOPA’s way from RecAus.

 

 

A lot of this discussion in our hangar about RecAus’s submission to CASA on the Class 1/2 Medical submission that AOPA worked on for all pilots. Did RecAus try and torpedo this submission?

 

Additional discussion on how both AOPA and SAAA were treated at Narromine at Air Adventure etc etc by RecAus and organisers.

 

What was said by RecAus staffers in New Zealand

 

Yes RecAus appears to be poking the dragon... and we are just hearing all of this after the event.

 

I think it’s time the real “Mission and Vision statement of RecAus is presented to members by RecAus.

 

And RecAus as an organisation and its Board members need to realise that we are in the same circuit/pattern and who cares who is number 1 or number 2 - let’s just fly together...

 

 

Ad/Web Glyphs for Exhibitors | EAA AirVenture Oshkosh Is "AirVenture" a trademark registered to the Experimental Aircraft Association, Inc.? Weblink was a return for a Google search of - airventure trademark.

In any case 'Freedom to Fly' seems, to me, like some sort of lamentful cry for the return of the 'apparent' way of the past. As if we have, or had, some sort of inalienable 'right to fly'.

 

Anyone who's actually been through the process of being permitted to fly in this country surely must know it's regarded as a hard-earned 'privilege' which will be whisked away at the slightest suggestion of anyone's failure to abide by the volumes of seemingly deliberately complex Rules and Regulations foist upon us by the Regulator.

 

There was a time when we did have 'Freedom to Fly', it started in 1976 and ended in the mid 1980s when AUF capitulated to DoA (or was it DCA or CAA at that time ...) and agreed to introduce pilot certification for flying mimimum aircraft (CAO 95.10 types, mostly disregarded by RAAus now).

 

I guess some of us are aware that good ol' US of A still does have Freedom to Fly under their version of our former 95.10 (called FAR Part 103 over there) where they don't need licences or certificates to fly ...

 

.... as this matter, if it ends up in Court will see the end of RecAus financially.AOPA Australia, AOPA USA and both countries members will no doubt put up a fight and dollars.

 

Yesterday I heard key AOPA members whom are ‘financially able’ discussing supporting AOPA’s potential Court case. .......

I really don't think RAAus members need worry that this will cause an out-of-control Court battle with dire financial consequences. If anyone challenges the trademark grant, there's no need for RAAus to defend it at all, they can simply sit back and await whatever decision comes about, with absolutely no costs incurred as long as they just accept the eventual decision, it would be the other parties that incur costs.

 

The damage would be, and probably already is, the relationship between RAAus and our brother sport aviation organisations. I think some very pro-active damage-control needs to be put underway very promptly and I also think the members should know which megabrain thought up this ridiculous nonsense in the first place, and which others supported the idea.

 

@NSSupersonic - we need to remember that trademarks are rarely global unless deliberately registered in other countries, hence Airventure may be just registered in USA but unprotected in other countries.

 

 

@NSSupersonic - we need to remember that trademarks are rarely global unless deliberately registered in other countries, hence Airventure may be just registered in USA but unprotected in other countries.

No worries Head in the Clouds. It just a shame they couldn't think of something original, as it appears a bit poor form.

 

 

Please see

 

Help needed - Lets hold RAAus to account

 

 

I tried to contact RecAus Board members in Victoria and Qld and I was told by those I spoke to that they will not discuss this matter. They have been told via email from the CEO and Chairperson to refrain from comment as the matter will be in the hands of RecAus staffers and legal moving forward.

Did the board instruct management to obtain the trademark or is the tail wagging the dog....?

 

 

Down under

 

The Board has gone quite - based on email advice to the Board to do so.

 

My early calls to Board members prior to the email led me to believe the two members I spoke to - three days ago - knew little about the registration or the AOPA and RecAus breakdown in relationships at Narromine over access to the event. Another issue in breakdown of relationships.

 

I think it was outside the SAAA hangar site that AOPA set up a basic display at Narromine.

 

Mmm and we all remember The OZRUNWAYS sponshorship and how they were made look the bad guy at Narromine.

 

My initial concern on “Freedom to Fly” was totally percuniary, as I was concerned about the “Freedom to Fly aerobatic team” that displays in China. Were they going to be affected by their use of “Freedom to Fly” as an AOPA team in China.

 

I was in discussion with a pilot on a commercial and potential investment basis for China.

 

So I was simply looking after my own interests and obviously as a member of both RecAus and AOPA Was wondering “what the hell”...

 

I must say that my phone calls to AOPA and Ben Morgan were answered immediately and Ben Morgan both explained his and AOPA’s position very clearlyto me.

 

Like most of us Ben clearly wonders what’s going on at RecAus and he was clear in saying his primary focus was the promotion of AOPA and the industry as a whole or the benefit of all.

 

 

Adminn

 

Yes I agree RecAus needs to be held to account by its members - us.

 

I’m not sure if you can link some of the other Facebook and comments by AOPA members to this site?

 

 

I tried to contact RecAus Board members in Victoria and Qld and I was told by those I spoke to that they will not discuss this matter. They have been told via email from the CEO and Chairperson to refrain from comment as the matter will be in the hands of RecAus staffers and legal moving forward.

The Board of Management Members which represented you in your area went with the Incorporated Association.

These people are Directors and you are now just shareholders of a Company, so it's not surprising that they just clammed up.

 

If you want to fix the situation, you have to follow the procedure to spill the Directors, close down the company reinstate the Incorporated Association and come up with a Constitution that ensures the members who pay the money decide what happens to it.

 

To do that you need several people with enough skill to bypass the proxy history of the past; someone else suggested calling a general meeting, but if you do that you have to overcome the potential of another meeting stacked with proxies (I'm not saying the present management would do that, just that it has happened in the past and needs to be addressed).

 

Unless you do that all your criticisms are falling on deaf ears; you have no more power than the individual shareholders of BHP Billiton.

 

 

Please seeHelp needed - Lets hold RAAus to account

Turboplanner have you seen the link in the earlier post, quoted above?

 

 

Turboplanner have you seen the link in the earlier post, quoted above?

Yes, and I addressed it in my comments.

 

 

The Board has basically two functions: to safeguard the assets of the members and to hire and fire the CEO.The CEO runs the business and the Board either approves or disproves his strategic plan.

 

If the board disapproves of the strategic plan then the CEO either resigns or is fired.

 

In my opinion, if what is alleged to have occurred has occurred, The Board should direct the CEO to assign the trademark to AOPA.

 

I am not happy about the state of cooperation between associations and I fear that RAA has embarked on a growth strategy at the expense of everyone else.

 

 

Personally I don't believe the trademark should be just given to AOPA but rather the trademark just be allowed to let lie and not enforced. The damage has been done. The issue here is that it shouldn't have been done in the first place and then made worse by trying to make AOPA pay to use it. The whole thing was very dirty by RAAus executive, CEO and board from the start and makes me think what else have they done without anyone knowing it. ALL aviation bodies should be working together for the benefit of all aviators but RAAus executive and CEO have shown nothing but immoral, underhand, sly tactics since they falsly grabbed power of our beloved Association of members.

 

The thing is we can't do anything about it because once we try we have to advise them of our motion in enough time for them to band together, and as we have seen before, use our own money to go out and get enough proxies to support themselves against anything we try to put up. As I have said before, and personally, we have lost RAAus in a hostile takeover by a couple of greedy power hungry individuals...I wish we could go back to having a great Association of like minded people that just want to get together and have fun flying whilst all joining together to have a say in our Association

 

 

..... The issue here is that it shouldn't have been done in the first place and then made worse by trying to make AOPA pay to use it. ....

I am completely against what RAAus have done in registering a trademark of words that have clearly been in use by another organisation, apparently for nearly eighty years.

 

I think it's along the same lines as the underhanded yanks who effectively stole the Ugg brand by registering their trademark both here and in the USA - and the ensuing battle that reigned when the rightful owners tried to have the registration cancelled just shows that prior use doesn't guarantee anything at all. It's also similar to the greedy low-lifes who tried to register the Smiley symbol, Aussie, Aussie, Aussie and similar icons.

 

However - I must have completely missed something here because I haven't seen where RAAus have asked that AOPA or any other bodies/entities should have to pay for the use of this trademark. Can someone point me to a reference please, because if they have done so it puts a completely different and much worse light on an already very messy situation.

 

 

I am completely against what RAAus have done in registering a trademark of words that have clearly been in use by another organisation, apparently for nearly eighty years.I think it's along the same lines as the underhanded yanks who effectively stole the Ugg brand by registering their trademark both here and in the USA - and the ensuing battle that reigned when the rightful owners tried to have the registration cancelled just shows that prior use doesn't guarantee anything at all. It's also similar to the greedy low-lifes who tried to register the Smiley symbol, Aussie, Aussie, Aussie and similar icons.

 

However - I must have completely missed something here because I haven't seen where RAAus have asked that AOPA or any other bodies/entities should have to pay for the use of this trademark. Can someone point me to a reference please, because if they have done so it puts a completely different and much worse light on an already very messy situation.

AOPA and RAAus in Dispute over Slogan - Australian Flying

 

Jason

 

 

Post #4

 

 

OK, thanks gents. However, at this stage we only have that on the interpretation of an Australian Flying magazine reporter who just might not have worded it quite correctly.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely appalled that RAAus would even consider registering someone else's slogan as their own trademark, that absolutely beggars belief and I think heads should roll. BUT - we haven't actually seen this letter of demand for payment of a licence fee.

 

Is it possible that in the heat of the moment either Ben Morgan overstated the case, or that the reporter hyped it up? I think we all know the reliability of anything we read in Aussie papers or journals.

 

In IP cases like this - where various entities need to share the use of patented products or trademarks it is quite normal for the other entities to be issued with a licence without any fee being paid. Is it possible that RAAus' initial contact might have been misconstrued by AOPA staff amid the very understandable indignation of discovering that their slogan had been usurped? All I'm saying is that perhaps RAAus said something more like "you'll need a licence to use the phrase, which we will issue to you", the point is, was there any actual mention of a fee? It's noticeable that Mr Morgan isn't reported as having said how much the fee was. Perhaps it was the nominal $1 which is frequently required to validate a licence in some States and Territories.

 

I think we need more specific facts rather than assumptions. In the meantime I think we should pressure for answers from the RAAus Directors.