Aspern

The name is a registered or

somehow other protected name or

brand within the aviation sector

even if there had been no remark on the homepage in this regard at all, legally speaking, you can not use protected trademarks without consent of the owner of the respective rights.

http://www.titan-airways.com/home.html

Thrige-Titan was neither a registered or somehow protected brand or name within the aviation sector

but

Thrige-Titan was a registered or somehow protected

Additionaly Titan Air(ways) is a real life airline. If you put "aybsbdjhb" nothing ot "Thrige" in front. A generic word doesn't give the right to use the same name.

You only read what you want - don't you?

As sk already said, the updates rules will be published soon. Nevertheless, a few words to explain the decision:

 

  • This rule refers to names based on Generic Geographic Terms only, i.e. names of countries like "British" or "German"
  • The use of an exact trademark will remain prohibited (like if he had used "British Airways")
  • Obviously, we still disallow the direct or modified use of copyrighted logos/graphics

The use of geographic terms to form a company name is an obvious and natural thing to do. As long as a user refrains from using an exact real airline name, combinations using geographic terms should be possible. I’m also not too worried about lawsuits rolling in over future trademark infringements. AirlineSim is a game, we don’t use the names for any commercial purpose and we can clearly prove that we have processes in place to deal with and prevent actual trademark infringements.

The rule changes are supposed to lower the workload for us, to reduce the amount of times we have to annoy players with grey-area complaints and to allow for more obvious name choices.

Please explain me which generic geographic term "titan" is ... and once again ... it is an exact trademark. But leaving this all written as it is and accepting it, that you have another opinion and obviously think that your opinion is the only valid one ... if we/I contact you and ask you to rename your airline, why on earth do you think argueing and ignoring this will be ok unless we/I tell you so?

@ ATITANIC1992

Would it not be easier just to think of another name instead of putting up this useless dicussion just "to be right" or for the sake of an argument? You can now rant on me all you want about how "it's a matter of principal" but the fact remains, if you use half the effort you put into this for finding a new name you'd save the team and yourself a lot of time....

"Titan" is a generic/common word/term that can be found in the dictionary, and therefore it can not be protected. 

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. "Generic Term" is not the word/term itself, but the relation of the word/term with a product or service. So while you are not able to protect the word "apple" for apples (or other fruits), you are able to do so for products that have nothing to do with real apples, for example, computer (although I don't believe someone would do that ;) ). So you can't protect the word "Titan" for metal or alloys, but you can do so for nearly everything else. And in fact, "Titan Airways" is protected (by trade mark EU008511453), so for that reason alone Thrige-Titan Airways is not allowed. 

So this is the last time I will give it a try to explain it to you. If you won't understand it again, I can't help you.

1st: Titan is no geographic generic term - and only these are expressively excepted in the thread you linked yourself.

2nd: Even if this would have been the case - real brands - in that thread British Airways - were also excepted from the generic rule - that's the same with Titan Air

3rd: No one ever stated that Thrige-Titan was active in the avialtion sector. But the rule you are alsoi linking on forbids protected names or registered names (doesn't matter which sector and if they still exist or not). Additionaly it also prohibits brands within the aviation sector. Otherwise we shall have to allow a coca cola airline...

I don't know anything about fly Blue, but I have seen several airlines start out with the name 'Delta' in them, only to have them changed later on. Sometimes takes a while, but they seem to be on top of it.

ATITANIC - I wrote a thread about this some time back.  I did have an airline named Trans Brasil some time before. I have clearly proven the trademark WAS expired in Brazil, and did not exist in a jurisdiction where it could be claimed (Brazil, Germany) and not even in the USA ( we all know USA wants to claim infringements even if it happens for a Kilingon Company on Romulus). But my claims were not accepted for reasons I considered (for lack of better word) illogical (illogical in a form that in real copyright or trademark claim such arguments could never be brought up as used here... e.g. that maybe Trans Brasil had a maybe loan with maybe some bank which maybe went unpaid and maybe such bank could maybe hold some claim to a Trans Brasil name/trademark in some unspecified third country, etc.) ... at the end, I gave up, changed the name... they were not going to accept my arguments (however logical they could be in real world sense related to intellectual property laws, international treaties, and processes of enforcement on international level) and I value my time more than spending it researching international copyright and trademark treaties, searching for trademark databases worldwide, when at the end such time goes to waste as none of the arguments is accepted.

So I suggest to you and anyone else, when facing such (name-related) situation, if they do not come up to reason after one-two email/PM exchanges, do not fight it, just change the name, save yourself hassle and waste less time on it. You will feel less frustrated at the end.

Not possible to change/update code, only the name. Been there, done that. .... unless you reset liquidate and start from scratch (where you can select a new code).

Aspern is at 1199/1200 so you should be fine liquidating and starting anew if you decide so.

Hi,

"The name is registered

or

the name is somehow other protected

or

the name is a brand within the aviation sector (i.e. US Airways)"

I don't know if the name is registered, but I Googled Thrige-Titan  and it gives me enough links to think that the name may well have been registered at some point, even though the company is now called T-T Electric or so. Perhaps it is not a protected name anymore, but I believe you are the one who told Sascha that is was an existing name.

Apart from all the rest, write a hundred times "I should not call other people dumbass".

Jan

Ehm - these are three independent points. As written somewhere before - with your logic an airline called Coca Cola should be possible too. And stop insulting others - if you this to me in the heat of your anger it is one thing but this is not ok!

Well that is true. I see that "TITAN Airways" is registered, but i'm not sure if their protection also reach so far to ban names such as Thrige-Titan Airways.

 

Another argument to try in court is to consider "Thrige-Titan as one name (it actually is), thus not being a violation of “TITAN”

Then SK claimed it violated the real world Thrige-Titan, which would be true if it still existed. However, i already considered that, but i read in the naming convention that the AS rules only apply to names or brands from the aviation sector. Thrige-Titan never being a part of that, i thought it would be OK.

 

A third argument could be to consider “Thrige-Titan” as two seperate terms, but consider the “Titan” part to be the danish word Titan which means Titanium in english. The real TITAN Airways has not registered the word Titanium, which means i should be able to use it in the danish language.

 

In the end this has to be decided by the court, but with my experience in copyright and trademark law I wouldn’t take that risk, as it is highly likely for me that this name-combination is protected, too. The same applies for your other points. “Thrige-Titan” might not be protected in an aerospace-related class (I haven’t checked it), but as it is not a common term a Thrige-Titan Airways is able to confuse the people by implying a relationship (that does not exist), so I wouldn’t take that risk too, for the same reasons as before. And in trademark law it doesn’t matter at all if you don’t mean an english “titan”, but the danish word for “titanium”. It is not the intention, that is protected, but the term itself.

 

 

What is your opinion on the name written in danish, Thrige-Titans Flyveselskab?

Same as before, as it is not a common term it is implying a relationship, that does not exist in reality, and I would guess that the name would be denied by court for that reason alone.

What about "fly Blue" in Aspern http://aspern.airlinesim.aero/app/info/enterprise/id/1987.16

Is that a violation of the real JetBlue?

I don't expect "Blue" to be protectable (it is a common adjective, that can be associated with nearly everything), and in my opinion the name "fly blue" does not involve the danger of being confused with "JetBlue" (which I would guess is protected). In the end (as always) a court would have to decide this, but in this case I would take the risk.

It is important for you and for anybody else to understand why we have the rules and why we are changing names. On the one hand we want a realistic simulation, that's why we don't want names that would have no chance to be accepted in reality (which has nothing to do with your case, I'm just telling it for the sake of completeness), on the other hand Copyright and Trademark law is difficult, the risks are high and the punishments can be hard. Airlinesim is responsible against the rightholders, but able to sue the player for compensation. So with these rules and the namechangings we do protect ourselves and the players, as most of them do not think about the risks. Sometimes it may look unfair, or very restricted, but because we do not have the capability to proof every case by a lawyer that's the only way we can offer such a system.

 

In the end this has to be decided by the court, but with my experience in copyright and trademark law I wouldn’t take that risk, as it is highly likely for me that this name-combination is protected, too. The same applies for you other points. “Thrige-Titan” might not be protected in an aerospace-related class (I haven’t checked it), but as it is not a common term a Thrige-Titan Airways is able to confuse the people by implying a relationship (thas does not exist), so I wouldn’t take that risk too, for the same reasons as before.

This is highly correct, it's called trademark dilution

BUT having said that, it's not that ANY registered trademark can claim trademark dilution. If I have a small home based company in Wichita, Kansas, operating and selling locally computer repair, I probably could not brink dilution lawsuit against an Alaskan company with the same name offering deicing services for airplanes in Kwigillingok, Alaska.

Sure, but these rules are different from country to country and also the purchase of naming rights are different. Therefor we decided to prevent this in general.

This is highly correct, it's called trademark dilution

BUT having said that, it's not that ANY registered trademark can claim trademark dilution. If I have a small home based company in Wichita, Kansas, operating and selling locally computer repair, I probably could not brink dilution lawsuit against an Alaskan company with the same name offering deicing services for airplanes in Kwigillingok, Alaska.

Thanks, I had just forgotten the english term. :)

And you are right, the circumstances are very important, especially awareness and regionality. And with the internet, the whole situation is getting much more complicated. But thats exactly the point: We have these rules because the whole system is complicated, because we have limited ressources and because we don't want to risk anything just for an ingame-company-name. We know that this led and will lead to situations, in which an unproblematic name is not allowed, but it is the only way we can offer it.

Does that apply for ALL common adjectives? Then "Titanic Airways" should not be protectable because Titanic is a common adjective.

Don't mix it up, you can't protect a common adjective itself, but you can protect combinations with it. So even if you can't protect "Titanic" (I guess you can't as an english adjective), you can of course protect combinations like "Titanic Airways". And due to the mentioned problem with trademark dilution a protected "Titanic Airways" would also make a "Titanic Airlines" impossible, at least that's what I guess. 

Are you sure that generic geographic terms can not be protected? I saw the team accepted Royal British Airways as a name in AirlineSim. I highly doubt that would be allowed IRL. 

Geographic terms itself can't be protected, but like before combinations can. And British Airways is protected, so normally Royal British Airways should not be allowed (it don't know this airline in AS, so I don't know if it was a mistake, or just overlooked). By the way, for my opinion "British Airlines" is also problematic, because it is very easy to be mixed up with "British Airways". However, "Royal British Airlines" would be okay for my understanding.

I'm wondering... if you hate the way a chef prepares your favorite meal in a restaurant, do you keep going there?

why are we wasting precious time better spend on developing the game rather than just accepting that certain things have been turned down repeatedly, whether we like it or not?

and those are rethorical questions, so please refrain from answering. thank you.