An article in Saturday’s New York Times by Robert Crandall, former chief executive of American Airlines draws attention to the practice of code sharing. This is where prominent airlines allow other carriers to use their two-letter codes (e.g. AA for American Airlines in the flight number) to denote their flights, even though the prominent airline is not actually operating the journey. Crandall is concerned:
“All this has happened despite the fact that there are precious few consumer benefits to code-sharing. The main beneficiaries of these arrangements are the airlines, which can mislead passengers into believing that they will be flying a complete itinerary on one carrier, when in fact, they will be using several airlines.”
According to the article, it also allows major carriers to shield themselves from the competition of smaller carriers by killing off independent carriers not involved in such code sharing.
The IPKat says the trade mark implications of code sharing depend on how it’s treated by the airlines concerned. Trade mark licensing is permissible in principle and if the prominent airlines exercise control over the quality of the airlines that they allow to use their codes then this doesn’t seem too different from licensing. However, if the sharing is done in such a way that consumers do not realize that they are flying on a less prestigious airline until they reach the airport (or even the airport itself) then consumer are deceived. In the UK at least, if a trade mark owner uses his mark deceptively he is liable to have it revoked under s.46(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
Inflight entertainment here, here and here
Want to fly? Click here, here, here and here
“All this has happened despite the fact that there are precious few consumer benefits to code-sharing. The main beneficiaries of these arrangements are the airlines, which can mislead passengers into believing that they will be flying a complete itinerary on one carrier, when in fact, they will be using several airlines.”
According to the article, it also allows major carriers to shield themselves from the competition of smaller carriers by killing off independent carriers not involved in such code sharing.
The IPKat says the trade mark implications of code sharing depend on how it’s treated by the airlines concerned. Trade mark licensing is permissible in principle and if the prominent airlines exercise control over the quality of the airlines that they allow to use their codes then this doesn’t seem too different from licensing. However, if the sharing is done in such a way that consumers do not realize that they are flying on a less prestigious airline until they reach the airport (or even the airport itself) then consumer are deceived. In the UK at least, if a trade mark owner uses his mark deceptively he is liable to have it revoked under s.46(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
Inflight entertainment here, here and here
Want to fly? Click here, here, here and here
COME FLY WITH ME (OR MY FRIEND)
![<strong>COME FLY WITH ME (OR MY FRIEND)</strong>]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Monday, August 25, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html