Virgin Australia name might be hard to get

[oz_mark]

Sir Richard wants the name, but someone else seems to have it. Story on ACA:

David and Goliath

Don't know whay they just don't throw him a wad of cash and be done with it.....

 

[samh004]

Sounds just like domain name squatting, though it’s nothing like The Castle. I do think he should have better compensation than 2 return flights to Sydney, but I do wonder what he’s asking for. I think he might be a bit unreasonable about howe much he wants, though I doubt the figure he wants will be leaked.

It would be good to see Virgin Blue acquire the rights though.

WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING
If they want the domain, then i would make them offer big dollars for it, its a win win
Matt , COFFS HARBOUR NSW

Just one comment featured on ACA… how is it a win win?

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Don't know why they just don't throw him a wad of cash and be done with it.....

Good find oz_mark.

Above quote
That would be the logical thing to do, buy them out. But, sometimes ego's get in the way...

 

[MarcB]

I seem to recall that this guy had the domain name long before Virgin arrived in Australia. One of the reasons they did the competition to pick the name when they arrived (and ended up with Virgin Blue) was because of this I think...

 

[drewbles]

Sounds just like domain name squatting, though it’s nothing like The Castle. I do think he should have better compensation than 2 return flights to Sydney, but I do wonder what he’s asking for. I think he might be a bit unreasonable about howe much he wants, though I doubt the figure he wants will be leaked.

It would be good to see Virgin Blue acquire the rights though.



Just one comment featured on ACA… how is it a win win?

Not squatting no:

Domain Name: virginaustralia.com.au
Last Modified: 20-Oct-2010 07:00:38 UTC
Registrar ID: PlanetDomain
Registrar Name: PlanetDomain
Status: ok

Registrant: VIRGIN AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD
Registrant ID: ACN 051117401
Eligibility Type: Company

From their webpage:

Public Notice: VIRGIN AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. ACN; 051117401 is an Australian owned company, founded in March 1991 in accordance with all Australian Government and Corporate Laws. Virgin Australia wishes to make it clear, that it does not want to be confused or associated with Sir Richard Branson’s - Virgin group of companies.

From ABR:

ABN:
55 051 117 401

View ABN history
Last modified:
09 Jun 2004
ABN status:
Active from 01 Apr 2004
Entity name:
VIRGIN AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD.
Entity type:
Australian Private Company

Opportunistic? Sure. But it looks legit. Tried to look up ASIC but their search is 'busy' at the moment.

DJ are also just paying Sir D|ck for the licensing rights to use the Virgin brand. I'd say Sir D|ck would need to do the haggling there for IP rights, rather than DJ (Virgin Australia has been around a lot longer than Virgin Blue, if the website is to be believed).

 

[stuartfaz]

I don't think this will be much of a stumbling block. ASIC tend to take recognition of the brand in the marketplace into pretty high regard. Just because this guy says he doesn't want to be associated with Virgin, doesn't mean he isn't profiting off that association.

Same deal as the Kiwi lady who registered her small business name as Lion Nathan Limited.

I'm sure the David and Goliath story is great ACA fodder but in reality I don't see Sir D!ck losing sleep over it.

 

[Bundy Bear]

I watched the ACA story, I am sure the guy thought it was a catchy name so he chose it for his business, but the 2 flights to Sydney bit was a bit small.

I am hoping the Virgin Blue group of companies can get hold of the Virgin Australia name but I think it will cost a bit more than a few free flights.

 

[drewbles]

And here's the ASIC P/L entry:

It has indeed been registered since March 1991.

 

[markis10]

Just one comment featured on ACA… how is it a win win?

Anything that minimises lawyer bills is a win win for both sides.

 

[drewbles]

I don't think this will be much of a stumbling block. ASIC tend to take recognition of the brand in the marketplace into pretty high regard. Just because this guy says he doesn't want to be associated with Virgin, doesn't mean he isn't profiting off that association.

Same deal as the Kiwi lady who registered her small business name as Lion Nathan Limited.

I'm sure the David and Goliath story is great ACA fodder but in reality I don't see Sir D!ck losing sleep over it.

Considering the guy has had the name since 1991, where Virgin had effectively 0 market in Australia (Virgin Music started in what, 1993-ish if I recall?), he's got a pretty good case.

That said, his entire business seems to be a bookmark with an arrow that says 'this is where you stopped reading'.

I don't care who wins, but it's not a case of this guy registering the name to take advantage of DJ's name or Virgin's branding in AU. He had the name before it got big here.

I would see Sir D|ck spending more time trying to extract royalty rights to the Virgin name from this guy than he would fighting for DJ to use it (DJ's just paying him to use Virgin now; he's all about cash not about helping DJ to get the name).

 

[samh004]

I’d hope Virgin Blue can buy the name from the guy then, instead of SRB, but who knows what the price will be. Would be funny to then see SRB fighting his own airline for the name… can’t imagine it’d wash over too well

 

[scibo10]

I’d hope Virgin Blue can buy the name from the guy then, instead of SRB, but who knows what the price will be. Would be funny to then see SRB fighting his own airline for the name… can’t imagine it’d wash over too well

Here here....

 

[Mal]

Considering the guy has had the name since 1991, where Virgin had effectively 0 market in Australia (Virgin Music started in what, 1993-ish if I recall?), he's got a pretty good case.

Having the name that long doesn't rule out opportunistic - for example, when in Hong Kong I might see a shop-front, go "I like that name - perhaps they'll end up in OZ" and register it here with a view to getting compensation later. The Virgin group has been around (in the UK) for a lot longer than 20 years.

That said, generic names like "Virgin" are horrible normally as many people can think of the same name over a period of time.

Interesting case. I'll leave it to the legal eagles and their overpaid barristers to sort out.

 

[rwatts]

Having the name that long doesn't rule out opportunistic - for example, when in Hong Kong I might see a shop-front, go "I like that name - perhaps they'll end up in OZ" and register it here with a view to getting compensation later. The Virgin group has been around (in the UK) for a lot longer than 20 years.

That said, generic names like "Virgin" are horrible normally as many people can think of the same name over a period of time.

Interesting case. I'll leave it to the legal eagles and their overpaid barristers to sort out.

When Burger King wanted to expand into Australia in the early 70s they found the trademark was already owned by "a takeaway shop in Adelaide" - according to Wikipedia. Hence the Australian master franchise was set up as Hungry Jack's.

I remember at least two Burger King shops still existing in the 70s and in the 60s a large drive-in (not drive-through !) had existed at Darlington, not far from the current Hungry Jacks).

When the Burger King trademark eventually expired in Australia in the 1990s, Burger King Brands did set up some Burger King stores - which mightily annoyed their master franchisee Hungry Jacks who then successfully sued the parent company.

Moral is I guess that often an entrepreneur will look at successful trends overseas and if the trademark is not locally registered will grab it to trade off the reputation. The Woolworths name is another good example. The Australian Woolworths and South African Woolworths operations although named after the American F.W. Woolworths group have never been actually connected to it.

Richard.

 

[JohnK]

Nothing wrong with the big boys bullying the little boys. Happens all the time. We are used to it by now.

As oz_mark says throw the guy a wad of cash and be done with it....

 

[Mal]

When Burger King wanted to expand into Australia in the early 70s they found the trademark was already owned by "a takeaway shop in Adelaide" - according to Wikipedia. Hence the Australian master franchise was set up as Hungry Jack's.

And of course in Adelaide there are the two Hiltons ....

 

[rwatts]

And of course in Adelaide there are the two Hiltons ....

The Hilton Hotel in the Adelaide suburb of Hilton is probably in a different category since it certainly pre-dates Conrad Hilton's first hotel in 1919.

The Hilton Motel that existed on Greenhill Road on the other hand would have pre-dated the Hilton entry into Australia but certainly traded on the name. I have a feeling its now a Quality Hotel.

There are plenty of cases where global brand owners have tried to "heavy" legitimate local users, only to lose and have to settle at greater expense than if they sat down and talked in the first place. It will be interesting indeed to see what happens with Virgin branding.

Richard.

 

[NYCguy]

Nothing wrong with the big boys bullying the little boys. Happens all the time. We are used to it by now.

As oz_mark says throw the guy a wad of cash and be done with it....

The Beard will probably just get his chequebook out. He can easily afford it - just offer them, let's say, $10M for the rights to the name, and they'll probably jump at the deal. In the scheme of things, that sort of money isn't a big deal to a big fish like Branson. It's amazing how dazzled the little boys are by eight-figure offers from the big boys, and how people worth $4B hardly miss $10M...