G'day Cap. Havoc, Sorry mate, a million apologies; I wasn't giving a history lesson. On a re-reading of the post however it does look like it. It's been a few years. :-)I was just incensed at the suggestion that Qantas had used the term "airways" rather than "airlines" simply to circumnavigate the trade mark copyright.If some of the later posts are correct then I can see the virtual airline undergoing a name change!cheers,Roger

They just don't quit picking on our lil ol airline from Texas do they...This is the last public statement JetStar International Airlines will make on this matter as I'm doing it for our peers here in the flight simulator community, in particular those who had the guts and talent to design, build and market their own Originally Named and Themed virtual airlines to avoid copyright hassles from real world operators. But it seems we are not safe with the current double standards in the business world.There are a lot of pundits in various forums debating the finer points of trademark law in the forums and pretty much all are missing the key issues of this case as it pertains to the law.This is a trademark case. The law says we need to prove customer confusion in the market place. .This is about a company who is trying to use other people

I completely agree with Jetstar. I just went through the trademark process and it is very specific and thorough. The name "Jetstar" is unique, and it this case the VA clearly showed usage LONG before Qantas. There is NO WAY IN HELL the trademark/patent attornies for Qantas did not see this. An internet domain/copyrighted/trademarked logo and name will stand up in court all day long, ESPECIALLY with previous usage. Lawyers are even wary of using the same name in a for a different business entity. Try creating "Coca Cola" airlines and see what happens. Somebody at Qantas is going to get fired over this for sure. You know how much money they've probably invested? Personally, I think if they had any brains, they would settle the suit, buy the name from Jetstar VA, and then allow Jetstar a 10 year exclusive right to operate as Jetstar VA.

I have to say this is a very dangerous situation for the whole flightsim community!! We all went bonkers when American Airlines tried to enforce their copyright/trademark on us. Eventually they backed off, but legally they could have stuck to their guns. Now we're doing the same to another airline. Just say Jetstar International prevails and QANTAS is forced to change the name of it's airline. That will cost them a lot of money. Then what do you think they'll do? They may turn around and go after the flightsim community to remove all Qantas liveries from AVSIM, FLIGHTSIM.COM and other sights, claiming copyright/trademark infringement just like American Airlines did. What if all the other airlines joined in. That could cripple this community. I don't think we want this to happen. With all do respect to the people at Jetstar International, while I don't consider them a Toy Airline as others have said, I also don't consider the airline as a business either. Regardless of who's right or wrong in this case, I think it's necessary to come to some compromise short of going to court over this. The alternative could be catastrophic to the community.

I agree. Real airlines have graced the flightsim hobbyists by allowing their trademarked logos to be used at will all over the flightsim world. Why can't a virtual airline extend the same courtesy to a real airline? Be careful of what you wish for. You just might get it.

G'day Roger,Hey, I'm just a pedantic ol' phart :-lol (comes with the territory of thesis writing about the New Zealand aviation industry).

I hardly think that the gentlemen over at the QANTAS sanctioned VA http://www.jsvirtual.net/ are in competition with you!In keeping with your previous comments, I think it would be better to just say the issue is that QANTAS gave permission for someone else to use what you believe is your name.You are an International VA that does not have a hub based in Australia, sure you have flights that head into the country - but due to differing time zones I cannot say I have ever seen one of your VA's flights or callsigns enter Australian/NZ airspace.They are a Domestic VA that services only Australian cities, and is based solely within Australia. After looking at their website it would appear that they want to mould themselves the same as the QANTAS JetStar, who do not operate to International destinations.com-pe-tition / 1. a contest for some prize or advantage. 2. the rivalry between two or more business enterprises to secure the patronage of prospectuve buyers. 3. a competitor or competitors.My point?..... You are not competing with the other VA, neither VA is a business in the true sense. There is no money to be made within the VA world, and there are no buyers - only members/pilots. As far as I know there is no rivalry between the two VA's, and there shouldnt be either. It is not a contest (if there is, we should all take a good hard look at ourselves)or any advantages to be gained.I, like many others within the hobby have varying opinions of what it is you are trying to achieve, and the possible impact it may or may not have upon our fantastic hobby. I will keep my opinions to myself here today on that matter.Finally, as a VATSIM member and a member of many different VA's - I ask that you keep your issues with QANTAS and JetStar Airways with those companies, and not start creating another issue with the VA that shares the same name as the one you are taking legal action upon.I like many others will be interested to see the outcome of your legal action.

I believe a name is only worth something if it can beshown to have a value in the marketplace.

I'm not making a second post on this subject - I'm posting on behalf of someone who cannot join the forum as they dont have a non hotmail.com email account.Hey Guys,Ive just been reading the posts that have been made over the whole Qantas Vs Jetstar International thing, and I have to say ive never laughed so hard in all my life.I mean really what drugs is the CEO of Jetstar Intl on ?? C

You are mixing "Trademarking" and "Copyright" up. Regardless of "dates"., I'm enjoying all the"Amatuer Sherlock Holmes" and "Amatuer Perry Mason's"commenting on something they know little of.Geepers, everyone's become a lawyer and "expert" oneverything regarding this case. Let the big boys handle it. Do you think that an attorney would take this case if there wasn't a HARD CORE foundation to do so?? The JetStar VA CEO has already posted the facts andreason's why this is being done. He's entitled to itjust as you're entitled to your opinion.I'm keeping the rest of mine to myself.

You people at JetStar Intl have lost your absolute minds! Do you realize what this is going to do to the rest of the VAs out here trying to get their foot in the door with the real freak'n world airlines?Your acting like pompass and selfish children! Look at my signature line here below. United Airlines approves of our airline at http://virtual.united.com and has helped to make en-roads for other airlines trying to get approval from their respective real world counter parts. With stupid and misreably dissalusioned stunts like this your going to spoil it for everybody in this hobby! Never, ever have I seen such selfishness and greed.Wilson HinesUAL006VHQCCSenior Vice President, Corporate Communicationshttp://virtual.united.com --------------------------------------Proficiencies: PSS 747,777, A32x, CS 727,PMDG 737-700---------------------------------------FS2002|ActiveSky|FSRealTime|FSBuild2|FSNav|Jep SimCharts2|ACLoaderhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/checkcapt.jpghttp://heavylhc.com/images/av/anna.jpg

It seems JIA didn't do such a thorough job in checking their name afterall! There is a JetStar Travel Service & Cruise Center, (www.jetstartravel.vacation.com/siteviewer/home.jsp) and also a Jetstar Inflight Catering service (www.jetstarinflight.com) with the name JetStar. Both Travel Agencies, and Airline Services (I think a inflight catering service could be constued as an Airline Service.) are included in the type 39 provisions they are claiming. These are established business, so in anyone has the right to sue it's them.

>Do you think that an attorney would take this case if there wasn't a HARD CORE foundation to do so??:)Cheers,Gosta.http://www.hifisim.com/images/as2betateam.jpg

It seems Gene Bordelon has chosen to delete all threads of this subject on his forum. He doesn't feel thats the right place for this discussion. He did state he has read everyone's comments and will consider both sides of the augument. While I defend his right to remove any thread he likes from his own forum, (These are private forums and Freedom of Speech rights do not apply) I'm disappointed he chose to take this step on such an important topic as this. His actions in this matter, could dictate the future of this community and hobby.