A Message about QANTAS ...... from P.U.P

[rickylee]

There is some discussion here about infringements and what one can or cannot do with Qantas branding so I thought I would throw in my $0.02.

Trade mark infringement is something quite specific - usually, not only must there be the use of a registered trade mark but it must relate to the specific goods and services for which the trade mark is registered: Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), s 120(1). In the case of Qantas, however, the fact that the trade mark in question is so well known that it would be taken to indicate a connection between unrelated goods or services with the registered owner of the trade mark, adversely affecting the registered owner - s 120(3).

The other elements of the branding, such as background colour, "look and feel", etc. do not usually form part of a trade mark and so it cannot really be an "infringement". However, making something look remarkably similar so as to mislead or deceive, if done "in trade or commerce", would infringe s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. However, a political activity in campaigning and soliciting votes would not be considered to be "in trade or commerce", but they have their own prohibition for that: Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth), s 329. I think there may be a good argument that, despite the use of "ABOUT" instead of "FROM", it is reasonably misleading to a voter that the letter was from Qantas.

Sadly, the maximum fine under s 329 is $5,000.00 - which is certainly not a deterrent to Palmer.

I would like to see Qantas take it up, sure, but I would also like to see the AEC do something about it. However, with the constant attacks by Palmer on the AEC, it may look like payback if the AEC did take it up.

It goes without saying that the above is general comment only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

 

[Melburnian1]

I agree that QF would take exception, even if the publicity states 'about.'

Big corporates want to enter political debate when it suits them (and mostly it does not), and do not like others setting the agenda - witness AJ's annoyance at the Senate committee hearings and his quip about how often he had attended.

QF would worry about its name being associated with any side of politics. With brochures like this, some Australians (the many apparently unaware that '13' follows' 12' in a sequence) would assume that QF was endorsing PUP - even though the readers of this thread know that such as assertion is incorrect.

 

[anat0l]

Well whatever the consequence or lack thereof may be, it may have had some effect (or not really at all).

The polls from WA seem to suggest strong swings to Greens and Palmer's Party.

Since both of these parties have strong intentions to not change the QSA at all, I suspect that this is going to represent a significant impasse at the federal level.

I don't know if Qantas would bite on this one. Having a go at Palmer may be seen as attacking your own supporter, let alone that the bloke has money (though if he were that interested, why doesn't he put more money where his mouth is). If the penalty is low enough, why bother (although we've known Qantas to go after some dubious stuff before, too). Also, people rip off the Qantas trademarks and logos everywhere - parodies, non-reviewed articles and blogs, banners, etc. - and almost always nothing has come out of them, whether they paint Qantas in a good or bad light.

Right now, I think the common responses would generally be, "Big deal", and, "Get over it".

 

[drron]

Even funnier I believe Clive used Karma Chameleon as his campaign song.
Couple of lines from boy George's version really are appropriate-
"I'm a man without conviction
I'm a man who doesn't know"

 

[Doggy]

Is it IP or trademark? How about you all try to agree what you're point is first. In any case Isn't a key element of trademark infringement fraudulent financial gain? Nothing there says the writer of this is pretending to be qantas to fraudulent pretend to be an airline. But love the huffing and puffing. Look forward to people moving onto stealing of money from Sydney water.

Been a while since I've seen someone get so upset about something they clearly don't understand. Do you even know what IP is?

Anyway, you already got lawyered it seems, so I'll move on.

 

[Hvr]

LOL, like your wife, I did the 77 step as well. I didn't want someone else deciding where my preferences went. However I regretted doing the 77 steps when I reached around 45.

Well as a former AEC vote counter you can stop marking below the line and just mark above the line.

If a Senate vote is invalid below the line but valid above the line then it is considered a valid vote on the above the line indication.

 

[Pushka]

Use of trademarks and IP can be used to fraudulently mislead. eg. You are purporting to represent that organisation when you have no legal authority to do so.

Our IP and associated trademarks are registered in several countries including the USA with regards to our particular product. And the look and feel are part of the registration. We've already had to issue a "cease and desist" letter earlier this year.

But sadly Palmer is here to stay it seems. We are playing with the Government of our country. What a mess.

 

[medhead]

Been a while since I've seen someone get so upset about something they clearly don't understand. Do you even know what IP is?

Anyway, you already got lawyered it seems, so I'll move on.

I'm upset? I'm not the one banging on about absolute rubbish. I'm not the one aggressively attacking people around here. Did you read your post?

 

[medhead]

Use of trademarks and IP can be used to fraudulently mislead. eg. You are purporting to represent that organisation when you have no legal authority to do so.

Our IP and associated trademarks are registered in several countries including the USA with regards to our particular product. And the look and feel are part of the registration. We've already had to issue a "cease and desist" letter earlier this year.

But sadly Palmer is here to stay it seems. We are playing with the Government of our country. What a mess.

The fact remains there is a difference between IP and a trademark. If someone outside your business created your trademark. Then it is their intellectual property, even if they've assign the use of their IP to your business.

As I said there is nothing in that stuff that purports to represent qantas

Anyway, it is pointless to waste time on this excrement..

 

[JohnK]

I couldn't care less about Palmer's party but I totally agree about controlling/limiting foreign ownership in Australia.

Too much foreign ownership already.

 

[Doggy]

I'm upset? I'm not the one banging on about absolute rubbish. I'm not the one aggressively attacking people around here. Did you read your post?

No doubt my "Not really the point" comment will get serious attention from mods. Thanks for participating lol

 

[rickylee]

Use of trademarks and IP can be used to fraudulently mislead. eg. You are purporting to represent that organisation when you have no legal authority to do so.

Actually, whether it is "fraudulent" or not doesn't matter, as long as it is reasonably misleading or deceptive.

 

[anat0l]

Actually, whether it is "fraudulent" or not doesn't matter, as long as it is reasonably misleading or deceptive.

That said, when all is said and done, it is up to the holder of IP or copyrights to take action first, i.e. in this case it would be Qantas.

It would likely be perceived as predatory, self-foot-shooting or - what's a phrase meaning the opposite of offering an olive branch - for Qantas to go after this action.

 

[harvyk]

Actually, whether it is "fraudulent" or not doesn't matter, as long as it is reasonably misleading or deceptive.

That's my general understanding is that if a reasonable person could believe that something is from the company in question, or the company in question is somewhat involved, then there is a problem.
Of course that simply gives the company who's trademarks / IP the right to initiate legal action, it is not an automatic thing, and of course it them comes down to who has the deeper pockets / who is more heavily invested in such action.

Chances are all QF will do is send PUP a letter stating that wasn't very nice and please don't do it again. PUP will then take that letter and put it into the global mail inbox for later sorting.

 

[rickylee]

Actually, we are talking about two separate causes for complaints / actions, as I was trying to explain above (though maybe with too much lawyer-gibberish).

The first is under the Trade Marks Act. Only Qantas can take action for that.

The second is under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Only the AEC can take action for that, but the other parties and/or Qantas can certainly bring a complaint to the AEC.

In both cases, the test is whether a reasonable person is likely to be misled or deceived by the material into thinking that there is a connection with or endorsement by Qantas. The intention of the PUP is irrelevant, that is why whether it is "fraudulent" or not doesn't really matter. If I am general counsel to Qantas (and I am not), I would not bother with a trade mark infringement claim, I would just fire off a letter to the AEC complaining about it and publish the letter in a press release. Much cheaper and achieves the same.

 

[anat0l]

Actually, we are talking about two separate causes for complaints / actions, as I was trying to explain above (though maybe with too much lawyer-gibberish).

The first is under the Trade Marks Act. Only Qantas can take action for that.

The second is under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Only the AEC can take action for that, but the other parties and/or Qantas can certainly bring a complaint to the AEC.

In both cases, the test is whether a reasonable person is likely to be misled or deceived by the material into thinking that there is a connection with or endorsement by Qantas. The intention of the PUP is irrelevant, that is why whether it is "fraudulent" or not doesn't really matter. If I am general counsel to Qantas (and I am not), I would not bother with a trade mark infringement claim, I would just fire off a letter to the AEC complaining about it and publish the letter in a press release. Much cheaper and achieves the same.

And why would it possibly be in the best interests of the AEC to consider an action? Apart from principle, precedent or public good, I'm not seeing any overall tactical reason for action.

 

[rickylee]

And why would it possibly be in the best interests of the AEC to consider an action? Apart from principle, precedent or public good, I'm not seeing any overall tactical reason for action.

The AEC has a statutory obligation to enforce the law.