Alaska Airlines acquired Virgin America in 2016 and did away with the Virgin brand.
Richard Branson pledged he would launch a new Virgin airline in the U.S., which suggests Branson certainly thought use of the trademark reverted to Virgin. He repeated the claim multiple times.
Yet Virgin Group sued Alaska Airlines, suggesting that Branson could never actually do this. Virgin had no right to use the trademark for an airline in the U.S. anymore – because Alaska Airlines had purchased the exclusive right through 2039 whether they used it or not.
As a result, they argued, Alaska owed $8 million a year for 20 years after eliminating Virgin America. And they won a $160 million judgment.
Alaska’s position was that the Virgin brand is useless to it, and it was a misreading of the agreement to require payments after a change in control and cessation of use. However the U.K. court agreed with Virgin.
If Alaska is going to be held to payments, though, and Virgin cannot partner with any other airline to sell flights in the United States, then Alaska wants to know… how on earth Virgin partners with Delta and sells their flights domestically?
As far as I know, Virgin only sells Delta revenue domestic tickets in conjunction with transatlantic flights. But you can redeem Virgin points for standalone domestic Delta travel through Virgin’s website (and therefore using Virgin’s brand). That, Alaska says, breached the exclusivity granted to it – and repudiates the agreement.
Alaska’s filing asks the court in the Northern District of Georgia to let it subpoena Delta for documents and conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. It seems likely this discovery will be granted.
To win their broader claim the will have to show that the Virgin-Delta sales fall outside the carveouts in their agreement that were intended to allow Virgin to sell connections to their international flights on a variety of carriers, and that the breach was repudiatory so termination of their trademark license is valid.
Domestic points redemptions do seem to be outside the carveout. Whether Virgin seems likely to argue that if this is a breach, that it is not fundamental, and they aren’t selling these Delta points redemptions as Virgin or Virgin-branded.
It’s an interesting question whether Virgin Atlantic “selling Delta-operated stand-alone domestic U.S. flights” to loyalty-program members on its own site breaches Alaska’s U.S. exclusivity for use of the Virgin brand that they’re being force to pay for.
(HT: Enilria)
Another f-ing legal mess
I love it. Frankly I think Alaska has a case here
Whatever the outcome, this case as a whole is likely to underscore the enduring risks of long-term licensing agreements, especially when brand ownership and airline alliances collide.
Worth noting: The US is not a signatory to any convention or treaty in relation to the enforcement of foreign judgments. The recognition and enforcement of an English judgment in the US will depend on the State in which that recognition and enforcement is sought or challenged, Georgia. There are considerable differences between the states. Q of how Alaska bought rights to the name through 2039, Virgin now wanting payments for a TM it didn’t own, a Court giving it to them.
I love it when I see companies strategically litigious. Most GCs I know are non-commercial in thought and sort of limp noodles.
Too bad the airlines don’t redirect their energy & resources from screwing each other & their pax to reinvesting in their own product, service & operation …. The main entities that are guaranteed to benefit are their corporate lawyers {warriors} …. Admittedly, I am intrigued by the upcoming integration of AS & HA … I think the emotional goodwill associated with ‘Pualani’ is even more intense than VX and wonder what ‘tricks’ AS has up its sleeves …
I’d be happy to help you recoup a little bit of that cash, AS…just release your damned premium card already!
It is quite laughable but not terribly surprising that AS doesn’t understand codeshare laws given that it has rushed to get its code put on every airline’s international flights into SEA other than DL.
VS has no traffic rights within the US and doesn’t market its flights within the US and neither does DL.
Offering VS award tickets on DL domestic flights doesn’t change any of that. No VS code within the US that is marketed independently of an international flight bears the VS code.
AS should be more concerned about not losing $160 million/year on their international aspirations.
Pay the $8 million a year Alaska! You eliminated a competitor Virgin America and now rule a larger percentage of the western region of the US.
Be happy! You WON.
@Hall Decker: If I understand this correctly, Alaska is suing Virgin in England, to be released from paying royalties for the “Virgin” name which it no longer uses. If Alaska wins the case, they won’t need to have that judgment enforced in Georgia because if Alaska is awarded monetary damages, they can collect them from Virgin in England.
The only thing Alaska is looking for from a court in Georgia is an order that Delta provide documents and deposition testimony which may be used by Alaska in their lawsuit against Virgin.
Typical. Brit ct rules in favor of brit company. Get a US ct to overrule that BS. Yea. Go Alaska!!
@ Tim Dunn — What an arrogant comment. I’m quite sure Alaska Airlines knows more than you about “codeshare law.”
I predict this settles out of court. Liars dont like to have their lying subpoenad. Of course, none of the aforementioned parties would ever lie, but just in case.
….. Good luck to AS in pursuing LHR slots and/or UK service in their continuing international aspirations !
… lol
Gene,
the only arrogance is from AS.
To assert that DL is marketing the Virgin name is beyond laughable.
and, no, AS is NOT asserting that it has it figured out. It wouldn’t be filing to view documents between DL and VS if it understood what was going on.
If anything, AS should be suing Virgin Atlantic for using the Virgin name in the US.
It is a nuisance suit to detract from the fact that AS is clueless about international operations which is pretty rich considering they have committed to a widebody fleet of dozens of aircraft and have more than a dozen foreign carrier codes on AS flights.
bossa,
yes, AS will quickly find out that flying to Narita and Gatwick and arriving at 2 pm at European airports with 4 pm departures won’t get them much brand loyalty esp. when their planes have mechanicals and there are no ways to protect passengers until the next day.
@gene
Tim Dunn the lawyer always knows more about the law than anyone else.
Oh wait… No, it’s just the same knowledge he brings to everything else in the comment sections alone. Useless and even Delta didn’t want it.
@ Tim — People can just book Delta and sleep for three days on the floor at ATL.
@Tim Dunn – You’re absolutely correct that Virgin Atlantic doesn’t have U.S. domestic traffic rights and isn’t violating “codeshare law” per se. Award redemptions on Delta-operated domestic flights via VS do not, in isolation, breach U.S. aviation regulations. But this isn’t a case about DOT enforcement or cabotage. It’s a contract dispute under English law, centered on whether Virgin Group breached an exclusivity provision in its trademark license with Alaska. So while your regulatory framing is technically accurate, it overlooks the actual basis of Alaska’s claim.
@Gene – I can appreciate where you’re coming from regarding Tim’s assumptions about what Alaska “doesn’t understand.” Filing for discovery under §1782 isn’t a sign of ignorance, it’s a necessary legal step when evidence resides with a third party (Delta, in this case). That said, your suggestion that someone is lying or that this will all settle quietly out of court is purely speculative. There’s no evidence (yet) of bad faith or dishonesty, only a complex contract fight playing out through proper channels.
Bottom line, the case will likely hinge on how the English court interprets the exclusivity clause and what the Delta discovery actually reveals.
I came here for @Tim Dunn’s reaction, and I wasn’t disappointed. Keep climbing, sir!
Sort of related to this mess, for those with a standard AS Lounge membership ($595), Alaska’s recent move from JFK T7 to T8 is a major blow, because Alaska closed their lounge in T7, and they don’t have one in T8, so you’d need Lounge+ ($795) to access Admirals Clubs, but Alaska didn’t give folks much of a heads up, so there are some AS customers with the standard membership who are quite upset with the airline. Not me, but I know a guy…
Max,
no, lawyers don’t know more than anyone else and esp. judges.
Lawyers get paid to either make you spend money to get something you otherwise couldn’t get by yourself or defend you from having to give up something you might have to give up.
Gene,
we realize you are incapable of refraining from throwing shade at DL but the discussion is about the use of the Virgin name. The only Virgin signage in ATL is controlled by DL that works VS flights; the reverse is largely true at LHR.
@ 1990 — $795? When did Citi raise the AA Executive card AF? And, do you frequently fly Alaska??
Mike,
as usual, you offer solid commentary but the notion that there is anything in the DL-VS contract that is any different than in DL-SkyTeam contracts or DL contracts with any foreign carrier.
I doubt very seriously if there is because DL doesn’t market Air France or Latam flights other than as part of alliance or JV agreements – OF WHICH THE FOREIGN CARRIER IS A PART.
Alaska has a bug up its backside that they have to pay for something that they don’t want anyone else to use.
Virgin Atlantic HAS paid for the right to use Virgin trademarks and has the right to use its name anywhere it operates.
The issue is Alaska vs. Virgin Atlantic, not with Delta. AS simply wants to try to push another angle of their loss because DL is VS’ partner (and part owner) but DL has no control over the use of VS’ name any more than AS has of China Airlines or Lufthansa.
Maybe we’ll hear how these goes but you don’t settle in nuisance suits when the party suing you has no clue what they are talking about.
@Gene — Pardon any confusion; not AA Citi Exec; rather, the lounge membership fee tiers for Alaska.
@Tim Dunn – Thank you for the thoughtful and measured reply. You raise very valid points about the nature of Delta’s joint ventures. And of course, you’re also absolutely right that Delta doesn’t typically “market” its partners’ flights beyond what’s permitted in the context of JV or alliance agreements, and that Delta isn’t in the business of unilaterally pushing foreign carriers’ branding in the U.S. domestic market. All very true.
That said, the key distinction here (and where the Alaska-Virgin situation diverges from a typical JV) is that the dispute isn’t about generic alliance behavior, but about exclusive trademark rights granted under a specific license. Virgin America (now Alaska) held what the English Court has already affirmed was an exclusive license to use the Virgin brand in connection with U.S. domestic operations. The crux of the claim is that Virgin Group, through Virgin Atlantic, may have enabled U.S. domestic marketing activity (e.g. booking or loyalty redemptions) under the Virgin brand that contravenes that exclusivity.
Whether Delta “controls” VS’s branding isn’t the issue; it’s whether Virgin Group, by working with Delta in this manner, facilitated activity that breached the clause. Alaska isn’t alleging Delta committed wrongdoing, it’s using §1782 to access Delta’s internal data that may reveal the extent and nature of the alleged infringement. That’s entirely appropriate and common in cross-border litigation involving third-party evidence.
Lastly, I would just submit that the assertion that Alaska “has no clue” doesn’t quite track with their legal posture, at least from what I’ve read so far. They’ve lost a major judgment and are still pursuing this through precise procedural mechanisms, suggesting strategic motives. Whether it’s ultimately a nuisance suit or a contractually grounded claim is up to the English courts to decide, but Alaska’s actions are consistent with a legitimate effort to enforce exclusivity in a high-stakes commercial license, not just sour grapes over a financial loss.
Timmy,
I just said you can keep your mouth shut vs trying to be a legal commentary on something you know nothing about. Lawyers do a great job finding various sides of an issue without your ignorant commentary. But I think we can all agree that this will be an interesting case to watch and Alaska has much better internal counsel and 3rd party counsel than your opinions.
Your mom’s basement wants you back.
Certainly sounds like a drafting issue not fully clarified by the parties prior to executing the contract. Should not happen if the lawyers were doing a thorough job, but it did, and errors happen. The courts are there to interpret it and there are rules on contract interpretation to guide them.
@ 1990 — You do realize that the Citi AA Executive card comes with an Admirals Club AND Alaska Lounge membership?
max,
it is clear that you ONCE AGAIN stick your nose into something solely to try to pile on – when you know nothing.
go play on the freeway.
Mike,
AS’ entire notion that DL or any other airline is marketing another carrier simply by placing its code on their flights is flawed. There isn’t a court in the US that would equate codesharing to what AS was required to do which was to pay for the use of Virgin trademarks for ITS OWN OPERATION regardless of whether they chose to terminate that operation or not.
Get back to me when 1. DL provides its internal documents to AS – those types of requests are frequently squashed and 2. AS wins anything and 3. it is possible that DL could countersue and demand lawyers’ fees.
It is a NUISANCE case and AS knows it.
@ Timmy must not have taken his pills today.
@Tim Dunn – You’re right that U.S. courts don’t equate codesharing with trademark misuse, and Alaska isn’t arguing that under U.S. law. But, again, this case is in the English High Court. Section 1782 discovery is sometimes denied, but not always. A U.S. judge has already approved Alaska’s request, which means it met the legal standard. Delta can still challenge it of course, but that hasn’t happened yet.
As for a countersuit, Alaska hasn’t sued Delta. It’s simply requesting documents. Without misconduct, a countersuit would be kind of unusual.
You’re also right that Alaska has a tough road on damages, and losing the royalty case was a major blow. But that doesn’t automatically make this a nuisance suit. If discovery shows Virgin enabled domestic use of the brand in violation of the license, Alaska’s claim gains traction. That’s what the court will ultimately decide, based on facts not yet public. In any event, it will for sure be interesting to see what happens next. Let’s see.
@Mike. Really enjoy reading your insightful comments. May I ask please what your professional line of work is? I’m certain that other readers are curious. Best regards.
@Tim Dunn “It is a NUISANCE case and AS knows it.”
It’s a pretty good stab at gaining leverage to negotiate down the payout
Whatever the outcome, I hope they don’t eliminate using Virgin Atlantic points for Delta domestic flights. It’s such a great use of points.
Gary,
you may be right but, again, the case is between DL and VS which has the right to use the Virgin name.
and Mike,
the reason why DL may not have responded is because they see the case as being between AS and the Virgin Group
again, let me know when AS wins this. I don’t see it happening on the basis that they are claiming. If DL were running billboards for VS, then I could see the possibility that AS could have a leg to stand on but that isn’t even what is being argued.
The issue, at its core, is that AS either didn’t understand the relationship Virgin America had with the Virgin Group and the responsibility AS would have if it tried to eliminate the name. THAT is the issue. It was a merger that was thrown together to try to block B6′ growth on the west coast and AS ended up dismantling most of what it acquired. Only when they bought HA did they realize that Airbus aircraft aren’t so bad after all.
All, Tim Dunn made some 100% incorrect statements at the time of the AA-JetBlue NE Alliance litigation that confirmed his willingness to speak far beyond his expertise in legal matters (he asserted that JetBlue’s lawsuit could not go forward without AA’s support, which demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of law). I strongly suggest you simply ignore him here. He has some limited expertise related to fleet matters and logistics. There is nothing to indicate that he has understanding of the legal system beyond an Intro to Law class, and his comments above confirm this. Save your time and stop trying to engage him here on a topic where he has no ability to add value.
@Johnmcsymthe – Anonymity is something I value in this forum, so while I don’t wish to disclose my occupation, I’m comfortable sharing that I hold both a JD and an MBA.
Jim
You misquote because you can’t stand that I was right about the NEA and AA’s ability to appeal. The courts shot it all down.
There is no case involving AS and DL. AS’ beef is with the Virgin Group and they are trying to drag DL into their loss.
Call me wrong if AS wins against DL
[Removed – Comment was from an imposter]
I don’t want to *not* publish a comment in case it’s offered genuinely, but I do not *think* the comment above is actually from Tim Dunn. (If he tells me it was not, I will gladly remove it.)
@Tim Dunn, you conflate ability to appeal with successfully appealing, again proving that you are speaking beyond your expertise.
@ Tim — Blink twice if you need help.
If my memory serves me correctly, the Virgin Atlantic and Delta relationship was pretty well established at the time Alaska bought Virgin America and I don’t think much has changed in that instance so it should have been aware about what it was purchasing and what it meant for them. Right ?
On a second note, you all seem quite bitchy in here, another comment section where the keyboard warriors come to play. Grow up ffs
I think i were Alaska i would find a Shorts S330 somewhere and put a Virgin (America) Livery upon it flying, it as a billboard just for spite, if Branson does not want to wrap this up and come to terms quickly.
Maybe offer free tours and occasional repositioning rides the public of a beat up Virgin America product as it repositions from city to city where the Virgin Brands operator such as Cruise City locations and Las Vegas. Maybe Alaska can put and equity tax on all ex Virgin Employees to help pay for these extra legal costs.
I think if i were running Alaska, i would find a Shorts S330 somewhere, and put a Virgin (America) Livery upon it… flying it to every “Virgin Brands” city as a billboard just for spite, if Branson does not want to wrap this up and come to terms quickly.
Maybe offer free tours and occasional repositioning rides to the public of a beat up Virgin America product as it reposition to locations such as New York, Las Vegas, or any city Virgin Branded Ships Depart. { – It posted before i was ready – }
Maybe Alaska can also put an equity tax on all ex Virgin Employees to help pay for these extra legal costs, or just have them rejoin Alaska as new hire employees. I think Hawaiian Airlines employees might like the seniority boost, though we all know this would never happen.
Gary is correct that the comment above his comment is not from me.
There are, sadly, a group of people who can’t logically participate in conversations so attack those that do.
and klima,
of course, AS is free to use the Virgin logo. They paid for it and were given exclusivity to do so for a period of time. Problem is that AS decided it has no use so there is no logical reason why AS would want to promote the Virgin brand in the US
Gary keeps up w/ some off the wall stuff. Hopefully this will be one of them and we will see how it ends up.
Mike,
you might be surprised at the level of education that some people have that is not known because of the nature of anonymous internet forums.
On the other hand, it is also clear that there are a lot of people that neither have education and common sense.
I am betting that AS will get nowhere and will still be on the hook for its Virgin licensing fees.
Hope the real @Tim Dunn is doing alright; I dealt with a @1990 imposter once before (the guy claimed to be 6’6” and that ain’t me…)
@Gene — Yes, well aware, and have used my Citi AA Exec for access to many Alaska lounges over the years when flying AA and AS; the issue is for folks who purchase outright standard memberships (I get it, a very small group) who are negatively impacted by the recent move at JFK. Those folks basically should not renew their memberships and just get the Citi product.
I said – Shorts 330 – aircraft.
Have a feeling the prolific commenter might not know what a – Shorts 330 – looked liked and was thinking I advocated for a some sort of foreign made wide-body, which is certainly not the case! Anyway, this all will be resolved one way or another.
It’s lucky JetBlue was not successful with their bid for Branson’s Folly, as it would probably of plunged JetBlue into Chapter 11 or worse, unlike any difficulties it may have to Alaska.
Alaska did not purchase all the Virgin companies and brands. Might be that Alaska purchased only the Virgin America company and brand, so cannot prevent Virgin Atlantic from pursuing its business?
@ Tom – The key detail is that Alaska inherited an exclusive U.S. license to use the Virgin brand for airline operations. That exclusivity means no one else (including Virgin Atlantic or Delta) can legally use the Virgin name in U.S. domestic air travel without Alaska’s consent. So while Virgin Atlantic can run its UK-based airline unencumbered, if it’s marketing Delta’s U.S. flights under the “Virgin” name, it may be violating Alaska’s territorial rights. That appears to be the core of Alaska’s claim here.
and, Mike, you can’t understand that NO ONE ELSE IS using the Virgin brand for domestic airline operations. Delta DOES NOT use the VS code on domestic US flights BUT ONLY as part of an international itinerary.
AS can assert all it wants and demand documentation but their basic thesis is wrong.
Just because they found a lawyer that is willing to push their claim doesn’t mean that there is the list bit of legal basis.
and, no, the UK courts have not said that what AS is asserting is true – just that AS has a right to ask for documents from DL.
DL also has the right to say it does not have the responsibility to provide any documents because there is nothing in those documents that allows DL to do what AS asserts.
let it go until there is a ruling.
This is a tiny little story that is entertaining to debate but the courts will figure it out and no one here.
and if AS wants to know what rules the Virgin Group has for the use of its brand, AS needs to ask the Virgin Group, not DL.
It is precisely because AS lost the case against the Virgin Group that they want to try and find anyone else – but DL DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THE VIRGIN GROUP’s NAME OR LOGO.
I suspect that is PRECISELY what DL will tell the court = any court
Tim, I appreciate your engagement, but several key points in your comment misstate both the legal framework and the factual underpinnings of Alaska’s case.
First, the issue isn’t whether Delta operates domestic flights under the Virgin brand directly, but whether Virgin Atlantic through its marketing channels and digital interfaces is promoting or facilitating the sale of Delta’s domestic U.S. segments under the “Virgin” name. That includes booking itineraries with a U.S.-domestic leg as part of a VS-coded international itinerary, which Alaska alleges may infringe its exclusive territorial license. Again, this is a trademark use issue, not merely an operating certificate issue.
Second, your assertion that “the UK courts have not said that what AS is asserting is true” is only half right. The UK courts did affirm that Alaska holds an exclusive license for the Virgin brand in U.S. air transportation and must pay for that exclusivity regardless of actual use. That exclusivity is valuable precisely because it bars others from using the mark in overlapping sectors, including any unauthorized co-branding or marketing of U.S. domestic flights by third parties under the Virgin name. The court didn’t rule on Alaska’s U.S. claims because it lacked jurisdiction. But it certainly validated the underlying exclusivity that gives Alaska standing to pursue infringement.
Third, while Delta may argue that it has no control over Virgin Atlantic’s branding, the reason Alaska is subpoenaing Delta executives is to establish the nature of Delta’s involvement in co-marketing, code-sharing, and joint commercial strategy, especially since Delta owns 49% of Virgin Atlantic and handles much of its U.S. sales infrastructure. That makes Delta potentially relevant under both Rule 26 and 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which governs discovery in aid of foreign proceedings.
Finally, suggesting that this case is frivolous simply because “a lawyer is willing to push it” ignores the very real legal precedent that exclusive licensees have enforceable rights under U.S. trademark law, particularly under the Lanham Act. Whether Alaska ultimately prevails is up to the courts, but there is clearly a plausible legal basis for asserting infringement if the Virgin mark is being used in a manner that undermines Alaska’s contractual exclusivity in the U.S. market.
Let’s not pretend the questions Alaska is raising are legally meaningless or procedurally improper. There’s a lot more substance here than you’re giving credit for.
Has anyone actually reviewed the documents that give Alaska Airlines the license to the Virgin America name? Virgin (the overall company) was going to continue doing business so the structuring of the name rights has to be quite detailed.
@jns – Yes, the licensing documents have been very closely reviewed, particularly in UK court proceedings where Virgin Group successfully enforced Alaska’s obligation to pay royalties. The contract was specifically structured to account for Virgin Group’s ongoing global business while granting Alaska sole U.S. rights.
@Mike Hunt, do any of Virgin’s continuing operating groups operate at any places in the USA? Virgin Voyages seems to be based in Florida. Does Virgin Atlantic fly to the USA anywhere? Does Virgin Australia fly to the USA anywhere? It seems to me that those operating groups would still retain the rights to operate under their name even if the Virgin name is also licensed to Alaska Airlines. So I doubt the claim of sole U.S. rights. The devil is in the details and the UK court has not checked in to this conversation and I doubt that they would release any details even if they did.
@jns – Yes, Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Voyages, and Virgin Australia all operate or market services in the U.S., but the issue isn’t whether they can exist in the U.S. It’s whether they can use the “Virgin” name in connection with U.S. domestic airline services, which is the precise category covered by Alaska’s exclusive license.
The UK High Court confirmed that Alaska inherited an exclusive right to use the Virgin name for U.S.-based airline operations and that this exclusivity had standalone value, even if Alaska chose not to use it. Other Virgin-branded entities can operate in unrelated industries or international markets, but they cannot use the brand in ways that encroach on Alaska’s licensed category: domestic air travel within the U.S.
The devil is in the details.
Mike,
either you are participating in this case or you truly can’t see that this is a jilted competitor that lost a case and is looking for a reason to try to argue the agreement it signed is invalid.
Delta does not market VS services in the US. Period. Full stop. Virgin Atlantic applies with the DOT for codesharing authority.
You cannot buy a flight on Virgin Atlantic even with miles in the US. You can exchange those miles for a Delta flight which is sold and operated solely under the Delta name.
AS wants you and the court to believe that a foreign carrier operating codeshare flights is equivalent to a license they chose not to use because they though the Alaska brand is so powerful.
The reality is that AS has virtually no brand value outside of the western US and even less in Europe and Asia where it thinks it wants to fly. The other choice they have is Hawaiian which is just as limited to a single geographic region.
Sometimes you can think so hard that you lose common sense – which appears to be where you are. Or else you are involved in the case and trying to litigate it for AS.
The case is STILL between AS and the Virgin Group. DL has no rights to Virgin’s brand and logos any more than AS does for JL. VS lost a case and wants to try to get DL to pay for its own rebranding from a regional airline that no one outside of the west coast will ever recognize.
AS is already in way over their heads and looking for anyone to blame for their strategic failures.
@ Tim Dunn – Tim, I’m not involved in the case, just following it closely and trying to stay grounded in what the legal filings and rulings actually say.
You’re correct in that Delta doesn’t operate domestic flights under the Virgin brand. But that’s not the threshold for infringement. Alaska’s position, as laid out in both their U.S. complaint and the earlier UK proceedings, is that Virgin Atlantic’s marketing and commercial activity may be leveraging the “Virgin” brand to promote Delta-operated domestic segments to U.S. consumers, particularly in the context of codeshare booking paths and international itineraries. That’s what gives Alaska concern, not the operational certificate or DOT filings.
As for the notion that Alaska is simply trying to unwind an agreement it regrets, you may notice that UK courts already ruled that the trademark license remains binding and Alaska must pay for it. The current legal action is not an attempt to invalidate the contract. It is an attempt to enforce the exclusivity it paid for. Courts have consistently held that exclusive licensees can bring infringement claims if a third party uses the mark in their protected territory and category, even if that third party is a codeshare partner or affiliate.
Your argument seems to suggest that unless Delta is painting “Virgin” on a domestic aircraft, there is no issue. But under trademark law, it is not just who operates the flight, it is how the brand is being used to market or sell it. That is why Alaska is seeking discovery from Delta, not because Delta owns the Virgin brand, but because it may be involved in how that brand is being used in U.S. air travel.
Reasonable people can disagree on how strong Alaska’s case is. But dismissing it as sour grapes from a jilted competitor ignores the actual legal theories at play and the fact that Alaska is seeking to protect a contractual right that, according to the courts, remains very much in force.
Anyway, there is really no need for any further back and forth here. We will all see where this ends up sooner or later. And I fully expect one of us will end up eating humble pie, which is very nourishing indeed.
Mike,
it is time to let the case play out.
The reality is that AS fought for Virgin America and overpaid trying to block B6 which would have been a far better fit. AS didn’t understand what it was signing up for and it is not a surprise that Virgin Group won the case on the basis that Virgin America had the right to use the Virgin Brand for decades.
It is beyond foolish to suggest that putting the VS code on a DL operated flight comes anywhere close to the type of agreement that AS acquired.
It is even more incredulous that you can’t seem to understand that the Virgin Group controls the use of its own brand so if AS wants to know what DL is allowed to use, they need to ask the Virgin Group and its licensees, not DL.
AS is trying to venue shop because it doesn’t want to try to win a case in the UK and yet I will bet you that DL will say that they don’t have any rights to the use of Virgin’s brand and the case is between AS and the Virgin Group, not DL.
Get back w/ me when this is settled.
an aside on a specific post: “Get back to me when 1. DL provides its internal documents to AS – those types of requests are frequently squashed.” The first day of Evidence Class in law school begins with “almost everything is ‘discoverable.’ There’s exceptions for some ‘work product’ (oral reports from Expert Witnesses, if they’re in writing they have to be handed over), documents that won’t advance the case (e.g., how much was the lawn crew paid in ’23), etc. There’s often Requests for Sanctions ’cause the other side WON’T voluntarily hand over ‘internal documents.’ Contracts, financials, even handwritten notes from negotiations or operation absolutely must be.
I can certainly see AS point. This probably only came up because Virgin successfully sued AS. In the process of mutual discovery, AS noticed some questionable practices which they couldn’t litigate in UK court due to jurisdiction issues. Now that the original case is done, Alaska wants to claw back any rights that were violated and they want payment for such violations, which softens the blow from the original case. It’s pretty logical and the courts will make the final decision, but AS could have a case here, especially since DL is a significant owner of Virgin.
and it doesn’t take a law degree to know that people make incorrect statements and then come to wrong conclusions based on their wrong “facts.” There are legal processes to argue that an inquiry is invalid because the basic assumptions are wrong.
and it doesn’t take a law degree to know that people make incorrect statements and then come to wrong conclusions based on their wrong “facts.” There are legal processes to argue that an inquiry is invalid because the basic assumptions are wrong.
Virgin Atlantic DOES NOT SELL solely domestic space within the US. Period. Full Stop.
You cannot buy a solely domestic flight on Virgin Atlantic’ website.
Virgin Atlantic DOES sell seats from London to cities in the US as part of its ability to market its products throughout the US. IT markets the space, not Delta
Final observation for the moment: It is evident that the Virgin brand has been utilized as both a sales and redemption mechanism in connection with standalone U.S. domestic air travel operated by Delta Air Lines. On that basis alone, Alaska has grounds to argue that Virgin Group may be in breach of the TMLA, and that Delta has acted with knowledge of and participation in that unauthorized use.