Bob_Belville Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Our very own Mooneygirl, Mooney Ambassadors Jolie Lucas, https://www.facebook.com/groups/132057967005/has been hit with a cease and desist letter from something called Women of Aviation who seems to have received a TradeMark for "Fly It Forward" several years after Jolie started using it for Mooney Ambassadors. They got her attention and she's pulled down some posts. Anyone here with experience re TM law might be able to give her some guidance. My instinct is that it is a bluff. Jet Blue Air is using the exact same phase in a ad promotion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danb Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 I'd ignore it and force there hand, then if need be back off at the latest possible time. I would at minimum want to see the trademark papers and the limitations if any.lscrew the women of avaition..no pun or anything else intended...these bullying tactics are B.S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danb Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Bob I agree. Also this a a possible deemed 'generic terminology'. Or set of common words not specfic to goods and services like say Reese's cup...candy. I did look up to see if they do have the term TM Ed and they do buy one wonders if generic is it valid, has it been renewed after the 10 yr period..if she continues to use the term..what could the possible damages be..I'd bet minimal at best...Jet blue use the word flying not fly it....there mission is for the betterment and promotion of women in aviation where the Mooney ambassadors mission is not the same nor does it represent a conflict in any way...as I said above. Screw em. ' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob_Belville Posted June 15, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Bob I agree. Also this a a possible deemed 'generic terminology'. Or set of common words not specfic to goods and services like say Reese's cup...candy. I did look up to see if they do have the term TM Ed and they do buy one wonders if generic is it valid, has it been renewed after the 10 yr period..if she continues to use the term..what could the possible damages be..I'd bet minimal at best...Jet blue use the word flying not fly it....there mission is for the betterment and promotion of women in aviation where the Mooney ambassadors mission is not the same nor does it represent a conflict in any way...as I said above. Screw em. ' I found several incidents in which JetBlue used "Fly It Forward" as well as "flying"... e.g.: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/237454/jetblue-launches-fly-it-forward.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EDNR-Cruiser Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 First of all they have to send proof of their rights and not just claim it... - if there's no proof of a (still) valid claim then just kick their butts... - it's not worth the paper! Secondly, as far as I remember, Jolie has no commercial interest in what she is doing for her "Women in aviation" and that will make it hard to prove any clash of interest here. Apart from the above, their request is so dumb that I cannot believe that this group and thus any rights exist in the first place. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 When I dealt with a similar but different situation, I had an attorney based in Maryland (and I live in Maryland with the issue here in Maryland) send a reply letter to the other attorney's office. It was a well written letter explaining that their client's case was factually incorrect, providing the fact pattern with documentation, and that at the present time I would continue operating my business with no changes. Should the issue escalate, I'd be more than willing to spend as much time and resources necessary, as the fact patter speaks for itself and I would win in ultimate court of law, but of course am willing to go that far if the attorney's clients wishes to pursue that course of action. Basically, between the lines, it said screw you, I would win, you are wrong, and I'll spend as much time and money as you want for you to be proven incorrect, or we can just end this now, your choice. It ended with the reply letter withdrawing the lawsuit. It was written much more civilized than what is here, but my recommendation would be to find an attorney that serves the jurisdictions of where the two parties are located, and unfortunately begin a clear communication chain to simply figure things out and finish them so that Jolie, who does so much for aviation, can continue to use her slogan. Good luck! -Seth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midlifeflyer Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 I did a quick check (I did trademark law both registration and litigation). This is information, not legal advice. I can't advise on public forums. The Institute for Women Of Aviation Worldwide, a Canadian company, filed an application to register "Fly it Forward" as a trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in April 2014. The company claims it has been using the mark "at least as early as 01/05/2010*. The application itself contains a specimen of use in February 2011 in an AOPA article. As far as I can tell from the record, the PTO raised no objection to registration for the usual reasons - conflict with another registered trademark or that the mark is "merely descriptive" (in layman terms, generic) - and approved it subject to a statutory period to give others an opportunity to object to the registration. The mark was published for the required 30-day opposition period, and it was registered as a trademark on April 15 of this year. If anyone else wants to take a look at what I did, the basic registration information is here. The filing record with all the filed documents. Note: * Trademark Law 101 - filing with the USPTO doesn't create a trademark. The USPTO registers trademarks that already exist (use creates the mark) and provides it with additional protection. That's why the trademark application says when they started using it in the US. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBill Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 If Jolie has a dated publication where she uses the term that pre-dates their TM application then she has rights to use it all she wants. That would indicate their research and justification for the TM was flawed. BILL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midlifeflyer Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 BTW, to sort of add to my soft disclaimer about not being able to give legal advice on a forum, although I do it all the time (some would say too much) on FAR stuff, I won't correct anyone's mis-statements on this topic because it involves something real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I've just fired them off an email expressing my displeasure. The very type of aviation promoted by Jolie is the very type of aviation used to give rides to women and girls as part of their Fly it Forwrd program. My support for them has ended, I'd sooner fly for Young Eagles, COPA for Kids etc. I'd encourage other pilots/owners to let them know your feelings as well. Clarence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yetti Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Not an attorney but I have had to back down people when they took pictures from one of my website and used them. Using something on the internet gives you copyright. I could look up the law, but I am too lazy. Whoever used it on the internet first can claim copyright and send the others letters and such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I've just fired them off an email expressing my displeasure. The very type of aviation promoted by Jolie is the very type of aviation used to give rides to women and girls as part of their Fly it Forwrd program. My support for them has ended, I'd sooner fly for Young Eagles, COPA for Kids etc. I'd encourage other pilots/owners to let them know your feelings as well. Clarence Clarence: I am with you on this one. I posted a "hold the moral high ground" piece on their Facebook page. Not certain it will embarrass them enough to rescind their dumb move, but.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyril Gibb Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 It would appear that AOPA, COPA and NAVCANADA support that organisation. I'll be sending emails (copying Women in Aviation) encouraging ending their corporate relationship based on the attempt to "chill" the aviation environment. It sounds to me that Women in Aviation has too much money to waste that they can indulge in this legal attack on a private person working towards the same goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_elliott Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 It would appear that AOPA, COPA and NAVCANADA support that organisation. I'll be sending emails (copying Women in Aviation) encouraging ending their corporate relationship based on the attempt to "chill" the aviation environment. It sounds to me that Women in Aviation has too much money to waste that they can indulge in this legal attack on a private person working towards the same goal. Cyril, I believe it is Women OF aviation, not women in aviation that sent the C&D letter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyril Gibb Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Cyril, I believe it is Women OF aviation, not women in aviation that sent the C&D letter You're correct.... I better work on that "attention to detail" issue I have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_elliott Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 You're correct.... I better work on that "attention to detail" issue I have. no problem, I also needed to be "corrected" on this issue before I went rogue on the wrong group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midlifeflyer Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 no problem, I also needed to be "corrected" on this issue before I went rogue on the wrong group. Kind of ironic isn't it? Avoiding confusion about the source of things is the whole reason for legal protection for trademarks. Yetti mentioned earlier a completely different thing - copyright, which protects creativity, and most likely doesn't apply at all to "Fly it Forward". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yetti Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Google says "fly it forward" is probably already gone to the public domain. Sky diving team, Jet Blue etc etc. The mooney specific use is not that much out there either, I would just come up with another one and be done with it. #forwardflying #girlsfly #mooneygirlsfly #flyitmooney #mooneyitforward #flyforward #girlsflymooney No lawyers needed that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midlifeflyer Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Google says "fly it forward" is probably already gone to the public domain. Sky diving team, Jet Blue etc etc. The mooney specific use is not that much out there either, I would just come up with another one and be done with it. #forwardflying #girlsfly #mooneygirlsfly #flyitmooney #mooneyitforward #flyforward #girlsflymooney No lawyers needed that way. "Public domain" is a copyright issue. It is not really a trademark issue. The concepts and the associated rules are very different between the two. There might be some overlap, but in the same sense that there is overlap between an instrument approach to a Class B primary and a VFR approach to a Class G airport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryoder Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Lobbyists and lawyers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgePerry Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 It would appear that AOPA, COPA and NAVCANADA support that organisation. I'll be sending emails (copying Women in Aviation) encouraging ending their corporate relationship based on the attempt to "chill" the aviation environment. It sounds to me that Women in Aviation has too much money to waste that they can indulge in this legal attack on a private person working towards the same goal. AOPA supports what Women in Aviation stand for but this TM complaint seems a bit over the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yetti Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 "Public domain" is a copyright issue. It is not really a trademark issue. The concepts and the associated rules are very different between the two. There might be some overlap, but in the same sense that there is overlap between an instrument approach to a Class B primary and a VFR approach to a Class G airport. I get what you are saying. Which is why I am saying it is not worth the electrons to discuss. Best advice ever given to me while working at Enron. Just tell the lawyers to quite playing lawyer games trying to out lawyer each other and their job is to find workable language that is acceptable to both parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob_Belville Posted June 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Mark, if JetBlue changed their slogan, as it appears they did, do you suppose that reflects more on concerns about possible negative PR than on the merits of the TM claim? They certainly have the legal horsepower to fight with WoA but I don't suppose they like the image of bullying a not for profit, particularly not one about girls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midlifeflyer Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 I get what you are saying. Which is why I am saying it is not worth the electrons to discuss. Best advice ever given to me while working at Enron. Just tell the lawyers to quite playing lawyer games trying to out lawyer each other and their job is to find workable language that is acceptable to both parties. I agree with you completely. And, in the real world of lawyers (not the world of what people imagine lawyers do), lawyers know "their their job is to find workable language that is acceptable to both parties." And that is exactly what they try to do more than 90% of the time. I've had far more potential good deals go south due to the unreasonableness of the clients than the unreasonableness of the lawyers. The number of lawyers I have had to deal with who were unmitigated a-holes who were a complete disservice to their clients have been incredibly few. So far anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midlifeflyer Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Mark, if JetBlue changed their slogan, as it appears they did, do you suppose that reflects more on concerns about possible negative PR than on the merits of the TM claim? They certainly have the legal horsepower to fight with WiA but I don't suppose they like the image of bullying a not for profit, particularly not one about girls. You mean changing from "fly" to "flying?" That's not very much of a change. As Yetti points out there are many reasons for decisions of this type; some legal, some not. One is that, maybe they've talked and reached an accord. Another is that JetBlue doesn't really care about it as a mark. A third is that there is a cease and desist letter that was sent to JetBlue. A fourth is that both parties realize that a program providing a source of family tickets for an airline is so far removed from supporting women pilots that no one is going to think they are related. Trademark Law 102 . If 101 is that purpose of trademarks is to identify the source of goods and services, then 102 is that multiple companies can use the same trademark if what they are doing is distinct enough so as to not result in confusion. The classic example is this: I don't think anyone thinks this is made by General Motors (although I am sure some would argue that the value is about the same) BTW, a quick look at the Women in Aviation website shows that JetBlue is one of the many corporate members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.