Jump to content

AOPA and RAAus in Dispute over Slogan


Recommended Posts

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.

Whether a fee is charged or not, the RAAus management and their comrades actions have tarnished the phrase and potentially aviation, and their actions go against any genuine aviator ethos. Also, do we know if the CEO and Board are actually running show, excluding CASA and more lower end individual members/customers in the equation? Cheers

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

As they say - "There's more than one way to skin a cat" Cheers

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does the AOPA object? They can use it for nothing, can't they?

A primary question is "why did AOPA not register the copyright or object to the registration to the registrar?" The copyright may have been open to snatchment by a commercial operator who may then have sought to use it for its own purposes or lecence or sell it for a fee. See

Ugg boots trademark dispute - Wikipedia

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
A primary question is "why did AOPA not register the copyright or object to the registration to the registrar?" The copyright may have been open to snatchment by a commercial operator who may then have sought to use it for its own purposes or lecence or sell it for a fee. SeeUgg boots trademark dispute - Wikipedia

Good point; just as bad as the one who snatched it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 ways to look at it

 

1. it surprises me any phrase can be registered as a trademark - if my life style gives me the freedom to fly then .............

 

2. RAA hijacked it

 

3. RAA registered it cause AOPA was n't bothered too. At least either organisation has it registered - so no one else can hijack it - RAA can lease it to AOPA for 10 cents per year if they like

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 ways to look at it1. it surprises me any phrase can be registered as a trademark - if my life style gives me the freedom to fly then .............

 

2. RAA hijacked it

 

3. RAA registered it cause AOPA was n't bothered too. At least either organisation has it registered - so no one else can hijack it - RAA can lease it to AOPA for 10 cents per year if they like

I don't think that's the point. If RAAus was really concerned for AOPA's welfare they should have approached AOPA and suggested AOPA register it themselves.

 

The issue is about the damage done to the relationship between the two aviation bodies. AOPA is bound to feel incensed, in the same way that the Australian Ugg proprietors were when some lousy other mob usurped the trading name that they had been using for decades.

 

 

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Good point; just as bad as the one who snatched it.

Nah your wrong! Registering IP is only worth what your prepared to pay defending it. Total waste for most. And probably AOPA’s position when they started using it.

This little episode will probably circulate some funds from the organisations to the lawyers to help put some fuel in their tanks.

 

Would be interesting to know if the initial idea to register came from RAAus legal advisors, maybe their piggybank needs topping up. would have totally understood the ramifications of this little bit of drama.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would RAAus want to register a mark, used for years by AOPA? If as they say it was to prevent others not in aviation using it, wouldn't it have been more sensible to suggest that AOPA registered it. I would assume that registration cost something and if RAAus was doing it to prevent AOPA from losing it, why not let AOPA pay the fee?

 

Just look at it as if you were RAAus and someone else was AOPA. Would you spend money for them.

 

Then RAAus say they will not re register it when it comes due. That to me is opening the door for some other person or organisation to step in and prevent AOPA or RAAus from using it.

 

This really looks like an attempt by RAAus to gain some profit from someone else.

 

Looking at all the other decisions made by company directors it is obvious that the main aim of any company is to keep the directors in an affluent situation.

 

Look at yesterdays announcement of Qantas. Big profit made so they reward the shareholders with 7 cent per share. Share price somewhere north of $6 per share, so dividend is less than 1.5%. Would you be happy with 1.5% going to finance your retirement fund. Even the banks offer way over that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
[ATTACH=full]61637[/ATTACH]

Having checked as best I can on ipaustralia site, and having never heard of a situation where the applicant wishes to cancel a completed trademark registration, I cannot find any means offered for that cancellation except by objection through 'non-use'.

 

So what will our illustrious CEO (or perhaps it's an illustrious director) actually do? Will we now see the ridiculous situation where the Applicant makes an application against his/its own registered/protected trademark for non-use, claiming it hasn't used it?

 

There may be some other method of cancellation I'm not aware of, but I'd suspect that the notice on RAAus FB page that the CEO 'has taken action to cancel the registration' was a premature knee-jerk without any action having actually been taken yet, because I'd like to know exactly what action he has taken, ... just my opinion ... but time will tell, tangled webs we weave when we seek to deceive and all that.

 

And - as someone else commented on the RAAus FB page - when will RAAus 'fess-up' and stop claiming it was all for the good of all aviation bodies? It was clearly and very embarrassingly a dumb attempt to usurp someone else's well established trademark.

 

Typical Canberra, on the night when we have our ... what 7th PM in as many years (or similar) ... too many wine parties in Canberra methinks.

 

EDIT - I think 'normal people' at this stage would just say "sorry folks, we had an idea that we thought was right at the time but it obviously wasn't, our mistake and didn't mean to cause offence, how can we fix this now?"

 

Instead we see backpeddling, excuses and self-righteous comment.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem started way back when the sheep that had the idea that I ONLY WANT TO FLY DONT WORRY ABOUT THE LEGAL SIDE OFF YOUR ORGANIZATION got misled by the so called experts at the top

 

a group off us wanted change I being only one of that group voiced my opinion and were out voted you voted for a new organization that cannot be changed

 

you have no control over the information that is not forthcoming it is worst than before two or three that know best out off the so called 10000 share holders because that is all you are neil

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This sort of stuff really annoys me. RA-Aus refuses to apologise for stupidly demanding royalties, and instead issues a statement that people can use the phrase as they please. They thereby imply that they never actually demanded royalties. And, they thereby make all people in RA-Aus look bad. It just what politicians do when a journo asks a question. If they had have just said "sorry" then the whole thing would have ended much better.

 

Maybe I was brought up well and maybe not. But I was brought up so that if you apologised and did your best to make amends, then that was the end of the matter. This matter will not end. To AOPA, RA-Aus will forever be the c---- that registered AOPA's slogan. Not cool.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • More 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a ridiculous storm in a teacup. AOPA used the slogan for umpteen years & did nothing. RAA decided to register it then on 17 August when some people started to get upset, wrote a letter to AOPA which seems to have been ignored by all and sundry as they continue to get more wound up about it.

 

This is a copy of the open letter to Ben Morgan by Michael Linke posted on facebook as stated in post #6

 

"On 17 August (followed by your public statement on 20 August) you expressed concern over RAAus registering the phrase “Freedom to Fly”. On 17 August, we wrote to you and said that we had registered the phrase as a public effort to make sure that it can be widely used in the public sphere by all non-profit organisations engaged in the aviation space, as it has been used liberally in the past by so many.

 

 

 

We agree with that principle and welcome expressing the value and meaning of this phrase in our industry. It may be used openly and without limit by any non-profit aviation organisation. As previously conveyed we encourage AOPA to use the phrase freely. RAAus will do so too, and supports others who seek the freedom to fly to do the same - freely, openly and without restriction.

 

 

 

In due course our registration will expire. We have no present plan to seek re-registration as our wish is to have this phrase used clearly for the benefit of Australian aviation as a whole.

 

Regards

 

 

 

Michael Linke"

 

 

It clearly states the phrase could be freely used by any non-profit aviation organisation so what is all the rubbish being bandied about that AOPA would be charged a fee to use it. I fail to see what the issue is though I don't understand their (RAAs) need to register the phrase in the first place, but after this statement why all the fuss and threats of legal action etc. Total BS IMHO.

 

 

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a ridiculous storm in a teacup. AOPA used the slogan for umpteen years & did nothing. RAA decided to register it then on 17 August when some people started to get upset, wrote a letter to AOPA which seems to have been ignored by all and sundry as they continue to get more wound up about it.This is a copy of the open letter to Ben Morgan by Michael Linke posted on facebook as stated in post #6

 

"On 17 August (followed by your public statement on 20 August) you expressed concern over RAAus registering the phrase “Freedom to Fly”. On 17 August, we wrote to you and said that we had registered the phrase as a public effort to make sure that it can be widely used in the public sphere by all non-profit organisations engaged in the aviation space, as it has been used liberally in the past by so many.

 

 

 

We agree with that principle and welcome expressing the value and meaning of this phrase in our industry. It may be used openly and without limit by any non-profit aviation organisation. As previously conveyed we encourage AOPA to use the phrase freely. RAAus will do so too, and supports others who seek the freedom to fly to do the same - freely, openly and without restriction.

 

 

 

In due course our registration will expire. We have no present plan to seek re-registration as our wish is to have this phrase used clearly for the benefit of Australian aviation as a whole.

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

 

Michael Linke"

 

 

It clearly states the phrase could be freely used by any non-profit aviation organisation so what is all the rubbish being bandied about that AOPA would be charged a fee to use it. I fail to see what the issue is though I don't understand their (RAAs) need to register the phrase in the first place, but after this statement why all the fuss and threats of legal action etc. Total BS IMHO.

So, does that mean that RA-Aus *never* asked for royalties?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a great public blue to have at a time when we need maximum government representation cohesion as an industry. Looks like a case of "mission creep" on the part of RA Aus. Hardly surprising that a motivated and competent group will want to "expand" their business. In a recent letter in the mag, Michael referred to RAA as the largest membership group and indicated future horizons. Not hard to say when you have to join to get a licence. RAA Board elections are on. I'm making some calls. New board members need to be independent thinkers who can't be badgered or bullied to tow the line, if the line is just to build more RAA Inc at the expense of the established other groups. (Assuming they are doing their job).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

So NON profit flying school ah , cool must be cheap

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't ELAAA an alternative with its exposition already under consideration by CASA?

With Part 149, it probably could get across the line if it cut back its sights to RA only but ot also has the Company stigma to overcome to get paying members and there’s a much different appetite than there was 18 monhs

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
As they say - "There's more than one way to skin a cat" Cheers

Maybe a friendly petition by members to back and support the ELAA formation to CASA and the regulaters might speed up the eventual formation of another body that would allow us to fly without empire building as RAA is going...or a public open member survey voicing our disgust at the takeover of an organisation that was formed in the first place for the enjoyment of flight at a real world cost without the added powerdreams of 2 repeat 2 individuals with a hidden agenda!!!!!

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
So NON profit flying school ah , cool must be cheap

Yeah, Nah this one's special, and it's the only one they've really used the phrase for. Which the other schools probably don't mind, as the whole thing's a bit embarrassing.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...