You most certainly have a right to your opinion,
but I don't believe this forum was the place to give it.
You issued a press release here. You linked your press release here.
The press release appears to be on top of this page. Many users also
responded to you initial release. I don't understand why here its not
the place to see another point of view. Furthermore, other opinions may
help you in your defense in being prepared what the other side may bring
up in court.
The name JetStar is intellectual property and has a copyright.
I hear you. I agree. Jetstar International is not Jetstar Airways. Just
open the phonebook and compare how many companies have the same "first"
name, which offer different services. In your case International, in
their case Airways. In their case they are in Australia, in yours, in
the USA, in your case you offer Virtual Entertainment, in their case
they offer Air Transportation.
Qantas stole our logo, our name, even our livery,
They use jet* you use jet*star. And the differences are endless. I also
compared jet* airplanes Vs your jet*star paintings and I couldnąt find
how you came to the conclusion that they are similar. Unless if they
changed them recently.
we went to great lengths to find a name that
wasn't associated with any other airline. It was unique.
I don't blame you on that. I totally believe you that you found a unique
name with unique colors with a unique name. And that's no easy task.
As a matter of fact, I like better YOUR colors/name than the carrier's
one. But that's my personal preference. And has no legal or other value.
You happened to check out our hits and concluded
that we get very few hits a day
Yes, in response to your [false] statements that you got 100000 visits!
(not hits) which may translate in almost a million hits. I didn't see
that in your stats. What I saw is a website with tiny decreasing
traffic - Even after you announced it on Flightsim. I'm not saying that
it's bad to have low traffic of high traffic. I'm just verifying your
statement about "the unprecedented traffic to our site nearly crashed it
- This continues even today increasing our bandwidth costs". I don't
know, but this and only statement should raise serious credibility
our site nearly crashed because of the multitide of hits,
nearly 100,000. This continues even today
.... and you still insist on that! Even when past historical data on
Alexa doesn't reflect that. Anyways - not my business, but in order to
prove it, only certified server logs from the web hosting service and
associated costs [damages] would do it.
How in the world would a lawsuit be of damage to the VA community?
It's simple. Its called "threat". In America where everybody sues
everybody for anything [thanks to hungry lawyers misleading their
customers - for cash - which is another case of egocentrism] anything
can happen. What tells us that American Virtual Airlines won't sue
American Airlines? [even if American VA is wrong]? So before this
happens, the real airlines, I'm pretty sure, may take action. Would they
be right if they do? Or let me rephrase: "Would American Airlines be
wrong to protect their colors/name from Virtual Airlines?"
We have the most unique logo
I compared both yours and theirs. The only logo in common that I saw
was the star (*). The star is used by many companies worldwide.
Echo*star, Jet*, Jet*star, and so on. Are you trying to say that the
star (*) is the problem?
Should your country not be recognized as legitimate
just because it is tiny in comparison to the United States? I think not.
When you compare Apples with Apples (aka VA vs VA) its ok to compare.
However, when you compare Apples with Oranges (aka VA vs Airlines) then
the problems may start. Back to population. I never said that your
website with 50 users/day shouldnąt be recognized as a website or a
company even though Jetstar airways site gets 49 times your traffic
(according to alexa) which amounts to approx 2760 visitors/day. Nothing
to do with. The initial argument is the "logo/name issue". Don't open
up doors with traffic, damages, resumes, e-mail, server crashes, etc.
If you do - then consider that "too much talk backfires" - which rest
assured, will be used against you to raise credibility questions. If
you think that your name/logo was violated - then stick to that and only
to that. Lawyer's aren't sleeping. They are in to make money.
we were flooded [..]
aircraft and aircraft parts suppliers and
even car rental agencies requests for business.
Should I comment on the above statement? Or not? If this holds true
then it's a matter of airline safety and the FAA / NTSB should seriously
investigate into this. What assures me that a terrorist tomorrow won't
open up a website under "AirForce One VA airlines" and the suppliers
won't send aircraft parts to them? Your statement is scares me. But
since I doubt its' true - it raises again more credibility questions.
Furthermore, how the heck the potential customers, employees, aircraft
suppliers got to your site. When a search for "Jetstar" is entered,
Jetstar Airlines is first Followed by Jetstar Aviation off the
Netherlands, followed by Jetstar Games, Followed by Jetstar Reggae
Distributor. I don't know but if your lawyer told you to say this - he
sees you as a big bill of cash. Don't think that Qantas will just sit
down and listen to your lawyer without saying a word. They are experts
in legal matters; they are getting sued almost on a daily basis. They
are elite "legal" players.
Anyways - I won't argue more, I hope that with my "different" point of
view I gave you some ammunition as what you may expect. I'm pretty
shure that Qantas will have their legal team do a lot more research than
I did. But I don't want you to go in just to surprise yourself. So in
a way, I think I helped you. Constructive statements help you.
Statements like: "Go get em' Gene, we're behind you 1000%" do nothing to
prepare you case. Come and tell us if these guys will be 1000% behind
you tomorrow at court. Or what they did to prepare your case. Guess
what. I helped you more than anybody else here. In a sense that I didn't
tell you what you wanted to hear. I told you what the other party may
consider at throwing on you. It would be easier for me to spend these
30 minutes in writing this post to watch TV. Or say: "Go, you're the
one, we're behind you 3000%" Talk is cheap. But cheap talk doesn't help
your case. If I spend 30 minutes to write what I wrote, it means
something. It mans that you may be right about the name issue, but you
have a lot more statements that work seriously against your credibility.
And believe me, if I were against you - I wouldn't have told them to
you in the first place.
It is also quite evident that you are seeing things
"subjectively" rather than "objectively.
If this is the impression I gave you, then disregard everything. I take
ALL my words back. And I say:
"Go get em' Gene, we're behind you 1000%"
I forgot to put the word NOT in front of subjectively. But my
description of it made it clear as what I meant. Can this also tell me
that you see things the way that you want them to see?
Qantas (it would have been nice if you had gotten the spelling of
this airline correct)
No but seriously, is this the point? Where else I did a typo or a
I wish you luck in what you do. And let's work as a VA comminity to make
this hobby as enjoyable as much.
If you propose to wax eloquent, it would
behoove you to do it with some credibility.
If this is the impression I gave you, then I apologize. Too bad the
30-45 mins I spend here. Truth is not nice sometimes - but the justice
system is there for that. Lawyers aren't. [that's the problem].