In 2023, Virgin Group won a $160 million lawsuit against Alaska Airlines, over a trademark dispute. Alaska is still trying to get this overturned, and it now involves Delta Air Lines, with a rather interesting angle. While we knew what Alaska was trying to do, there’s now an update, as a court has approved Alaska’s request.
In this post:
Basics of Alaska & Virgin Group $160 million dispute
In 2018, Alaska Airlines and Virgin America merged in a $2.6 billion deal. Even though Richard Branson’s Virgin brand has great name recognition, Alaska chose to maintain its own identity, and stopped using the Virgin America brand. That’s where the dispute originated.
Back in 2014, Virgin Group and Virgin America entered into a licensing agreement, whereby the airline would have to pay a minimum of $8 million in annual royalties to Virgin Group every year through 2039, for using the Virgin brand.
When Alaska stopped using the Virgin brand, the company believed it no longer had to pay those royalties, arguing it was “commercially nonsensical,” especially with a change in ownership. Not only was the name not being used, but Virgin America didn’t exist anymore as a company. As you’d expect, Richard Branson and Virgin Group had a different take, and believed that the royalties still had to be paid, even if the name wasn’t being used, and even if the company had been sold.
The lawsuit went on for years, and in 2023, a judge in London ruled in favor of Virgin Group, awarding the company a $160 million settlement. In the decision, the judge wrote that the minimum royalty was “a flat fee payable for the right to use the Virgin brand, whether or not that right is taken up.” The judge also added that the agreement “must be approached from the perspective of Virgin and Virgin America and not from the perspective of Alaska.”
Alaska trying to get decision overturned with lawsuit
Obviously Alaska Airlines doesn’t want to keep paying $8 million per year all the way through 2039, if there’s any way to avoid it. So the company is continuing to try to dispute this judgment, and in recent times, the company has been trying to take a different approach.
The idea is that in exchange for the royalties, Alaska has the exclusive right to market domestic US flights with the Virgin branding (since obviously Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Australia also exist, in other markets). And even more specifically, the company has the right to exclude others from using the Virgin brand on US domestic flights, and in other select international markets.
Alaska is arguing that Virgin Atlantic is selling domestic US flights on Delta, and that this qualifies as marketing domestic flights with Virgin branding. In reality, Virgin Atlantic is only selling wholly domestic flights on Delta through its booking channels if redeeming Flying Club points. And those flights aren’t actually Virgin branded (award flights aren’t codeshares), but it just happens to be that you can use Virgin points to book Delta flights.
Because of that, Alaska is subpoenaing Delta for documents related to Alaska’s trademark dispute with Virgin Group. The reason that Delta is being subpoenaed is to determine the company’s involvement in the overall marketing and sales strategy.
A US District Court has now approved Alaska’s request to initiative discovery into Delta, and secure evidence for the lawsuit. Following the court order, Alaska will serve Delta with a subpoena for deposition testimony and documents and communications that are relevant to this partnership. In a statement, Alaska shared the following:
“Through its loyalty program with Delta Air Lines, Virgin Group has repeatedly infringed upon Alaska’s exclusive right to use the Virgin trademark in the U.S. We are pleased that the Court has granted our request to obtain discovery from Delta for use in our U.K. lawsuit against Virgin for breaching our trademark license agreement. This discovery will provide additional evidence of Virgin’s scheme and will help illustrate how Virgin’s conduct benefited both Virgin and Delta at Alaska’s expense and in violation of the trademark license agreement.”
This all goes way beyond my knowledge of international law. Does Virgin Atlantic using its marketing channels to promote Delta’s domestic flights using the Virgin name infringe on Alaska being forced to pay for the exclusive use of Virgin branding for domestic flights?
While I don’t think anyone believes that letting Flying Club members redeem Virgin Atlantic points on Delta causes any confusion, ultimately Alaska is paying for exclusivity that it doesn’t want, so you also can’t blame the company for doing what it can get out of this.
Virgin Atlantic makes money from the Flying Club program (and even more broadly, Virgin Group makes money from its Virgin Red loyalty program), and the ability to redeem on domestic Delta flights is one of the upsides of the program. So it’s hard to argue that Virgin Group isn’t in any way benefiting from Virgin branding within the United States.
Bottom line
Alaska Airlines is still paying $8 million in annual royalties for use of Virgin branding, following the company’s acquisition of Virgin America back in 2018. While Alaska thought it was off the hook for these fees once it stopped using Virgin branding, a judge disagreed.
Now the airline is trying to get out of paying these fees by pointing out that its exclusive use of Virgin branding for domestic flights within the United States is being infringed upon, with Virgin Atlantic selling domestic Delta award flights through its booking channels. I’m curious if this ends up being a more successful argument for Alaska…
What do you make of this Alaska & Virgin trademark dispute?
Queue the breath holding, foot stomping and petulant child reactions by Dim Tunn when DL is be criticized. Geez take a beat…
Delta has owned 49% of Virgin Atlantic since 2013 and marketed as such. One year prior to the initial 2014 deal between Virgin Group and Virgin America. I don't see how this would change anything.
honestly, this whole thing is low key childish and has mediocrity written all over it.
It's pretty obvious that this lawsuit is a ploy to force Virgin Group to give up its royalties from Alaska for a brand it hasn't used in years--and doesn't want to use. It is very important to note that (a) Virgin won its case in a UK court and (b) Alaska is suing Virgin in a US court. Did anyone actually think a British court would give a US company a fair trial? In the...
It's pretty obvious that this lawsuit is a ploy to force Virgin Group to give up its royalties from Alaska for a brand it hasn't used in years--and doesn't want to use. It is very important to note that (a) Virgin won its case in a UK court and (b) Alaska is suing Virgin in a US court. Did anyone actually think a British court would give a US company a fair trial? In the current political environment, where the US has needlessly pissed off almost every other country on Earth, it is somewhat understandable. If Alaska Airlines were a corporation based in a red state, it's also possible that the UK would be facing higher tariffs over this by now. We live in a crazy world where a British limited company can continue to reap huge revenues for nothing and an American corporation can sue them for code sharing or allowing mileage redemptions on US flights. The only rule still applicable seems to be that turnabout is entirely fair play.
The UK court ruling was in 2023.
Doesn't really matter. Are you suggesting that we didn't manage to piss off other countries prior to 2023? I think Lucky's quote from the ruling is pretty telling: "(this) must be approached from the perspective of Virgin and Virgin America and not from the perspective of Alaska.”. A good case can be made that nothing of value is being provided for those payments. Yes, I believe that the UK ruling came from its highest court...
Doesn't really matter. Are you suggesting that we didn't manage to piss off other countries prior to 2023? I think Lucky's quote from the ruling is pretty telling: "(this) must be approached from the perspective of Virgin and Virgin America and not from the perspective of Alaska.”. A good case can be made that nothing of value is being provided for those payments. Yes, I believe that the UK ruling came from its highest court so there likely isn't a pathway to revisiting that ruling. However, the US courts are a different matter. AS is smart to try to use this as leverage.
“Did anyone actually think a British court would give a US company a fair trial?”
Multinational corporations often have a choice as to which legal jurisdiction should handle contractual disputes.
Let’s imagine a partnership between a multinational from India and a multinational from Korea to carry out a billion dollar project in Brazil. Which country’s legal system should be used for disputes? It turns out that in such cases where there is a choice, the...
“Did anyone actually think a British court would give a US company a fair trial?”
Multinational corporations often have a choice as to which legal jurisdiction should handle contractual disputes.
Let’s imagine a partnership between a multinational from India and a multinational from Korea to carry out a billion dollar project in Brazil. Which country’s legal system should be used for disputes? It turns out that in such cases where there is a choice, the vast majority of parties agree in their contracts that it will be English courts and English law which will have jurisdiction.
Their reasons are wholly pragmatic: the English system is largely predictable (so often you don’t even need to litigate), is (relatively speaking) fast, and there’s a vast concentration of legal expertise in London. There’s even a specialist court set up to manage international commercial disputes (known as the Rolls Building — Google it).
More unrelated multinational disputes are resolved in London than anywhere else in the world, by an order of magnitude.
Do you really think multinationals would actively choose the jurisdiction of English courts if those courts were partial in making judgments?
I’ve managed multinational litigation and my biggest dread was litigation in the US. It varies enormously by state and some states are fine, but some US courts are so utterly unpredictable as to induce nightmares. Given a choice, very few non-US parties choose the jurisdiction of the US legal system.
@The nice Paul--I appreciate your thoughtful comments. However, you spend a lot of space talking about "multinationals" seeking adjudication in London. This situation is a bit different--it was a US company suing a UK company, not companies from 3rd party nations. Given the court's ruling stating that it couldn't view this from the perspective of Alaska Airlines but only from the perspective of Virgin Atlantic and Virgin America, I can't help but think there was...
@The nice Paul--I appreciate your thoughtful comments. However, you spend a lot of space talking about "multinationals" seeking adjudication in London. This situation is a bit different--it was a US company suing a UK company, not companies from 3rd party nations. Given the court's ruling stating that it couldn't view this from the perspective of Alaska Airlines but only from the perspective of Virgin Atlantic and Virgin America, I can't help but think there was a home field advantage. If the court thinks that it's about Virgin America, maybe they should be seeking payment from Virgin America. Oh, wait...that airline no longer exists. Yes, I do understand the concept of successors and so does Alaska Airlines. Contrary to some other commenters, I don't think AS has stopped making payments nor should they. However, I agree with this next move. The court's ruling is patently ridiculous, as AS gets no value whatsoever from these continued payments. If these legal moves in the US can force a needlessly vindictive Richard Branson to stop his nonsense, it's absolutely worth pursuing.
Ben, Korean has ended mile sharing agreements with Alaska/Hawaii
https://www.koreanair.com/contents/footer/customer-support/notice/2025/2510-SKYPASS-mileage-partnerships
You truly have to ask why it took Alaska so long to end the agreements with Delta partners Latam and now Korean
Korean has been benefiting from Alaska and Delta hubs to feed his flights in Seattle
Virgin Atlantic is making money and marketing flights using the Virgin trademark in the US with American Express, Bilt Rewards, Capital One, Chase Ultimate Rewards, Citi ThankYou Rewards, and Wells Fargo Rewards. I would move to get them all into discovery and counter sue Virgin for violations of their agreement. It’s an interesting argument. The judge's ruling was that by purchasing Virgin America, Alaska obtained their U.S. exclusivity for use of the Virgin brand. They’re...
Virgin Atlantic is making money and marketing flights using the Virgin trademark in the US with American Express, Bilt Rewards, Capital One, Chase Ultimate Rewards, Citi ThankYou Rewards, and Wells Fargo Rewards. I would move to get them all into discovery and counter sue Virgin for violations of their agreement. It’s an interesting argument. The judge's ruling was that by purchasing Virgin America, Alaska obtained their U.S. exclusivity for use of the Virgin brand. They’re being force to pay for it, so technically Virgin Atlantic is selling points (a form of currency) to all these credit cards companies for flights. They are all using the Virgin trademark in the US.
And yet, Alaska’s contract says what Virgin group can and cannot do in the United States. Virgin Atlantic is an international carrier and sells services, including partnerships related to its international service.
Once again, Alaska is trying to litigate a failed merger at the very time It is trying to make its current merger work. That says volumes about the optimism it has for its current merger.
Matthew just had an article showing...
And yet, Alaska’s contract says what Virgin group can and cannot do in the United States. Virgin Atlantic is an international carrier and sells services, including partnerships related to its international service.
Once again, Alaska is trying to litigate a failed merger at the very time It is trying to make its current merger work. That says volumes about the optimism it has for its current merger.
Matthew just had an article showing how Delta is now the second largest airline at San Francisco followed by American and then Alaska. In just 10 years, Alaska has squandered everything it got from the virgin America merger.
These types of clauses are common in pretty much all franchise agreements. You sign for say 10 or 20 years, but if you close early, you technically are on the hook for royalties for the balance of the term. Rarely enforced, or used as leverage, but it’s there.
What I can’t believe is that Alaska’s legal team missed this in the purchase process. This should have been a no brainer for them to ask to...
These types of clauses are common in pretty much all franchise agreements. You sign for say 10 or 20 years, but if you close early, you technically are on the hook for royalties for the balance of the term. Rarely enforced, or used as leverage, but it’s there.
What I can’t believe is that Alaska’s legal team missed this in the purchase process. This should have been a no brainer for them to ask to be amended. It’s so common that it bewilders me they missed it.
Branson was furious at the time that Alaska discarded his brand. He publicly berated them for it. So it’s obviously personal to him.
Alaska bringing DL/VS into this is clever. A way for them to gain leverage in the situation.
Petty. Sounds just like Richard Branson.
except that AS already lost the case in the UK.
Given how much AS code whores w/ every carrier except DL in SEA, it is laughable that they try to argue what is and isn't codesharing.
It is the AS/HA merger that is at stake rght now and AS isn't doing a whole lot right now to prove this merger isn't that much different from what they did with Virgin America. i
Living...
except that AS already lost the case in the UK.
Given how much AS code whores w/ every carrier except DL in SEA, it is laughable that they try to argue what is and isn't codesharing.
It is the AS/HA merger that is at stake rght now and AS isn't doing a whole lot right now to prove this merger isn't that much different from what they did with Virgin America. i
Living in the past trying to "fix" a bad merger doesn't say much about AS' ability to make the current merger work.
Trying to save many millions of dollars isn't fixing a "bad merger.". It's mote along the lines of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.
It may have been a bad merger for Virgin America but it wasn't for AS. AS may have reduced flights at SFO but they got very valuable slots/gates at JFK and BOS. That they are using those resources by offering flights from destinations other than SFO isn't a bad thing for the company...
Trying to save many millions of dollars isn't fixing a "bad merger.". It's mote along the lines of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.
It may have been a bad merger for Virgin America but it wasn't for AS. AS may have reduced flights at SFO but they got very valuable slots/gates at JFK and BOS. That they are using those resources by offering flights from destinations other than SFO isn't a bad thing for the company if they are making money with those flights. Today, as per FlightsFrom, AS and DL each had 4 nonstops from SEA to JFK. Over the summer, AS actually had more flights than DL on that route. SEA is a hub for both AS and DL but JFK is a hub for DL but not AS. Does that mean that DL is somehow squandering its investment in SEA?
@Tim Dunn--I would also point out that when you say "AS already lost the case in the UK," the most important part of the quote is "in the UK.". It is questionable whether the US court system would have had the same opinion. It's really hard to justify licensing payments for use of a trademark that AS hasn't used in years and doesn't want to use going forward.
AS is being smart to pursue this...
@Tim Dunn--I would also point out that when you say "AS already lost the case in the UK," the most important part of the quote is "in the UK.". It is questionable whether the US court system would have had the same opinion. It's really hard to justify licensing payments for use of a trademark that AS hasn't used in years and doesn't want to use going forward.
AS is being smart to pursue this case in the US court system. At this point, they could also potentially go after Virgin Voyages (the cruise line), which home ports cruise liners in Florida. It would be easy for Virgin to get a settlement. All they have to do is end the licensing agreement.
Not sure why you reply with “except that…”. Nothing I said is in contrast to anything you said.
My main comment is that I’m shocked that Alaska’s legal team missed this in the discovery process of the merger. It’s so common that to have missed it is downright inept.
It’s a legal game at this point. I imagine Ed getting on the phone to Richard Branson saying “Call this off now! I do...
Not sure why you reply with “except that…”. Nothing I said is in contrast to anything you said.
My main comment is that I’m shocked that Alaska’s legal team missed this in the discovery process of the merger. It’s so common that to have missed it is downright inept.
It’s a legal game at this point. I imagine Ed getting on the phone to Richard Branson saying “Call this off now! I do NOT want Alaska having access to our proprietary information as part of their discovery process. Enough already!”
That would be the counter discovery.
I bet you find the $8m a year in the valuation calculation Alaska used.
It will come down to, does Alaska have exclusive rights to the Virgin Brand (all 100+ Virgin companies) or not. Doubtful.
It has exclusivity on Virgin AMERICA.
Virgin Atlantic is a completely separate company. Virgin Atlantic markets and sells flights to/from the US, allowing FF's to redeem miles for DL flights, are those flights sold as Virgin America flights? No. Case closed.
AS wanted the Virgin America name, so that Branson or others couldn't...
It will come down to, does Alaska have exclusive rights to the Virgin Brand (all 100+ Virgin companies) or not. Doubtful.
It has exclusivity on Virgin AMERICA.
Virgin Atlantic is a completely separate company. Virgin Atlantic markets and sells flights to/from the US, allowing FF's to redeem miles for DL flights, are those flights sold as Virgin America flights? No. Case closed.
AS wanted the Virgin America name, so that Branson or others couldn't restart the airline. They are paying for lic/control of the Virgin AMERICA name, not any other Virgin name.
There is no confusion. They knew the deal, simple as that.
I believe Alaska technically has U.S. exclusivity for use of the Virgin brand as Virgin America did.
By an agreement dated 19 November 2014, the claimant licensor (“Virgin”) granted Virgin America the exclusive right for a term of 25 years to use various Virgin trade marks in its airline operations in return for royalty payments (the “Licence”). It can be argued that airline points are part of airlines operations and the use infringes on their exclusive rights in the US. A Stretch but I would use it for leverage. Alaska can use...
By an agreement dated 19 November 2014, the claimant licensor (“Virgin”) granted Virgin America the exclusive right for a term of 25 years to use various Virgin trade marks in its airline operations in return for royalty payments (the “Licence”). It can be argued that airline points are part of airlines operations and the use infringes on their exclusive rights in the US. A Stretch but I would use it for leverage. Alaska can use the rights to make Virgin Brands basically illegal to use in the US without Alaska's consent.
This is a rather frivolous suit. They were to use Virgin America brand. They chose not to. Doesn't mean they don't then have to pay the royalties.
Are the US domestic legs being sold on DL marketed as Virgin America?
This is so darn stupid.
Delta / Virgin won't want to go through discovery here
This will become even more interesting with Alaska’s entrance into Heathrow is my small prediction.
like British courts might impound an AS aircraft if they refuse to pay?
Oh no... "a judge in London ruled in favor of Virgin Group"... anyways.
Alaska should refuse to pay that unenforceable judgment, especially these days, where our current government does not give a flying Fuddrucker about enforcing international agreements.
Alaska to Virgin: "Make me."
And, I don't mean any of that is 'okay,' because it isn't, but, let's get real, the 'rules-based order' of the last 70 years is evaporating, rapidly, so expect promises to not be kept, and few to do anything about it. 'Might makes right' is back, and me no like-y.
it's laughable that you argue incessantly against the current administration and then do exactly what you accuse them of doing...
The judgment would be enforced by the US court, not the administration. Assuming the UK court had jurisdiction, it would absolutely be enforced against any AS assets within the reach of the US court, like their bank accounts. This sort of proceeding probably happens every day.
see above.
and the comment had to do with 1990's railing against the current President defying laws for his sake while advocating for the very same principle
Laws are not for when we like them and non-laws when we don't like them.
And, don't forget that Alaska Air Group will soon have assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars -- i.e., 787s -- on the ground in the UK starting this spring. Even if a US court wouldn't enforce the English judgment (which is unlikely), an English court certainly would allow enforcement against assets within the jurisdiction.
It sounds like AS has a strong argument that Delta and Virgin are marketing domestic flights using Virgin branding. That’s the whole point of the code share, after all. I’m also reasonably confident that Delta displays Virgin branding and flight numbers on domestic flights at the airport.
Delta can legally sell seats in the US market; Virgin Atlantic cannot and does not.
VS legally cannot sell a domestic flight in the US; a stopover is still a segment that is part of an international journey.
How anyone that even understands air transportation at the most basic level can see it any other way is hard to understand.
Again, AS bought Virgin America with the full intent of dismantling the Virgin brand...
Delta can legally sell seats in the US market; Virgin Atlantic cannot and does not.
VS legally cannot sell a domestic flight in the US; a stopover is still a segment that is part of an international journey.
How anyone that even understands air transportation at the most basic level can see it any other way is hard to understand.
Again, AS bought Virgin America with the full intent of dismantling the Virgin brand and found out that the contract they signed requires them to pay for the use of the Virgin brand even though they have not used it.
Alaska's strategic mistakes and ignorance of what they signed is not a crisis for anyone else or obligate anyone else to bail AS out.
btw, this case has gone through British courts - and AS lost.
The issue isn't whether Virgin can "sell seats" on a domestic flight. The issue is whether Delta and Virgin are marketing domestic flights using Virgin branding, thus violating AS's right to exclusive use. As to the litigation in UK courts, it shouldn't be a surprise that they decided in favor of a British company over an American one.
Tim, I’m an aviation lawyer and have a reasonable understanding of the issues. I appreciate that AS has a contractual obligation to pay VS the royalty as determined already by the court, but VS must also provide whatever it has agreed to under the contract. If AS has the exclusive right to use Virgin branding on domestic US flights as they claim in the lawsuit, VS may be in breach of contract for allowing DL...
Tim, I’m an aviation lawyer and have a reasonable understanding of the issues. I appreciate that AS has a contractual obligation to pay VS the royalty as determined already by the court, but VS must also provide whatever it has agreed to under the contract. If AS has the exclusive right to use Virgin branding on domestic US flights as they claim in the lawsuit, VS may be in breach of contract for allowing DL to use that branding for codeshare purposes. VS doesn’t have to operate the flight for its branding to be used. They didn’t operate the Virgin America flights.
no, John, AS is fishing for yet another reason to not pay the royalty that British courts said it must pay.
Again, VS does not sell domestic seats in the US. The VS code does not appear in any case for a solely domestic itinerary. DL does and is not restricted in its ability to sell seats in the US any more than AS is.
This is yet another layer of AS trying to find a way out of paying for a contract that it knew it had no intention of using.
@Tim Dunn
“Act Your Wage,” “No Need To Be Extra”
“You do not get paid to argue. Just stop. There’s absolutely no need to be extra. This is not within your job scope. Act your wage. You’re a nobody, not a Delta Spokesperson.”
Explain it to me like I’m 5 - whether the flight is part of an international itinerary arguably wouldn’t matter, as a great deal of DL domestic flights are marketed as VS codeshares and at many airports display a rolling wheel of codeshare airline logos. That, to me, is clearly “marketing” a domestic US flight using the Virgin branding. How the flight is sold doesn’t appear to enter into the language of the contract, this...
Explain it to me like I’m 5 - whether the flight is part of an international itinerary arguably wouldn’t matter, as a great deal of DL domestic flights are marketed as VS codeshares and at many airports display a rolling wheel of codeshare airline logos. That, to me, is clearly “marketing” a domestic US flight using the Virgin branding. How the flight is sold doesn’t appear to enter into the language of the contract, this is strictly a marketing/branding question, isn’t it?
VS does not have the right to sell domestic flights in the US and does not.
Of course AS is trying to blame someone else and get them to foot the bill for AS' strategic mistakes; they knew exactly what they were doing when they bought Virgin America when they intended to abolish use of the Virgin brand.
So, when Virgin sells a flight that includes a code-share connection on Delta . . . and the Delta flight is listed as VS1234 . . . Virgin is not selling a domestic flight? I don't have a dog in this fight but it would seem to me . . .
No they are selling an international flight from London to I dunno ABQ or SLC or SYR or some other place that VS does not fly non stop to.
While I can (or could in the past) buy a 5th freedom BA flight from Toronto to NY or an Emirates on from NY to Frankfort or Milan. I can't go on any website and buy a Virgin Atlantic VS ticket stock issued flight from Atlanta to ABQ
How about the VA coded flights operated by Delta? even if they are connections to international itineraries, they are marketed as Virgin flights in the US. Especially if thy are not connections within short layover of 24 hours, but truly stopovers.
There is no VA coded flights operated by Delta. VA codeshare flights are operated by United Airlines stateside as it is United which has an agreement with Virgin Australia whose code by the was is VA.
All Virgin Atlantic codeshare flights on Delta are VS which is Virgin Atlantic's code. Meanwhile Virgin America's code was VX.
What I find interesting is Alaska is coming after Delta meanwhile United Airlines is free to use Virgin...
There is no VA coded flights operated by Delta. VA codeshare flights are operated by United Airlines stateside as it is United which has an agreement with Virgin Australia whose code by the was is VA.
All Virgin Atlantic codeshare flights on Delta are VS which is Virgin Atlantic's code. Meanwhile Virgin America's code was VX.
What I find interesting is Alaska is coming after Delta meanwhile United Airlines is free to use Virgin brand domestically here in the United States. Why go after one airline but allow another airline to continue using the Virgin Brand on domestic flights with their partner Virgin Australia? If you're going to go after Delta you have to go after United Airlines as well because both airlines are using the Virgin Brand (differing codes) on select domestic flight
Reason seems obvious to me: AS hates DL. AS doesn’t want to pay. Dragging DL smack into the middle of this serves your purposes while sticking to your enemy in the form of distraction and legal costs. You kill UA in and then you’ve pissed off another competitor who really isn’t coming for you right now.
They don't get to have their cake and eat it too. I guarantee you Delta lawyers will bring this up and question Alaska as to why it's okay for one airline to use the Virgin brand domestically but not the other. They are handing Delta a defense and a way out by leaving United out of this fight.
If Alaska is going to make the claim they own the Virgin Brand domestically here in...
They don't get to have their cake and eat it too. I guarantee you Delta lawyers will bring this up and question Alaska as to why it's okay for one airline to use the Virgin brand domestically but not the other. They are handing Delta a defense and a way out by leaving United out of this fight.
If Alaska is going to make the claim they own the Virgin Brand domestically here in the United States they either have to go after United Airlines and Virgin Australia as well or they have no case against Delta. I get Alaska does not want to drag United into this fight as they would piss off the top two carriers in the US but their argument doesn't hold water if they let United continue to use the Virgin Brand domestically as well.
If Alaska bought Virgin America, only to get rid of everything about them (routes, planes, brand) then why did they buy them?
It was a defensive move to keep another competitor (JetBlue) from buying them and creating a stronger foothold on the west coast.