Earlier this year, Oakland International Airport (OAK) rebranded as San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport. This was part of the airport’s effort to increase visibility and appeal among travelers, given Oakland’s proximity to San Francisco.
As you’d expect, San Francisco International Airport (SFO) wasn’t happy about this change, since it viewed this as increased competition. The airport sued to block Oakland’s name change, and there’s now an update.
In this post:
Judge blocks Oakland Airport name change
This week, a federal judge has granted San Francisco’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Oakland. This means that the Port of Oakland will need to immediately stop using the name “San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport,” and to not use “San Francisco Bay” in any promotions or products.
The judge decided that San Francisco would suffer irreparable harm from Oakland’s name change, and that Oakland violated San Francisco’s trademark for the airport. As the judge explained, “because the two airports offer identical services, the near identity of the marks makes them confusingly similar,” and that using San Francisco in Oakland airport’s name “when there is in fact no affiliation, connection or association between the Oakland airport and San Francisco is contrary to how airports in the United States are normally named.”
The judge also ruled that “The Port has taken San Francisco’s valuable Mark and applied it to a smaller, less successful, and lower rated airport.” Lol, ouch?
However, the judge didn’t totally rule in favor of San Francisco. He found that two of San Francisco’s three claims were without merit. Specifically, he didn’t agree with the initial-interest confusion and point-of-sale confusion, as he determined it would be difficult to see how online shoppers would confuse the two airports and buy a ticket to the wrong destinations.
Oakland Airport considering all available options
In response to this ruling, the Port of Oakland has issued the following statement:
“The court’s ruling found that two of the three types of confusion alleged by SFO were without merit. The court order temporarily blocks OAK’s new name on the basis of the third type of alleged confusion: that travelers may think OAK is affiliated with SFO. OAK is not associated with SFO, of course, but is rather a convenient and centrally located option for travelers throughout the Bay Area. We are continuing to review the recent ruling and considering all available options.”
The airport has spent quite a bit of money on its updated branding and signage, and now that will need to be taken down, at least for the time being.
Bottom line
A judge has ruled that Oakland Airport can’t use “San Francisco Bay” in its name, following a rebranding earlier this year. This decision came down to violating San Francisco’s trademark. However, the judge didn’t rule in favor of San Francisco when it comes to initial-interest confusion and point-of-sale confusion.
What do you make of a judge blocking Oakland Airport’s name change?
Who cares? What is anyone going to do about it? Two bankrupt, 3rd world $hithole cities suing each other? They should really spend thier time and taxpayer funds resolving thier respective issues rather than worrying about the names of thier airports that no one flies to anyway because... 3rd world $hithole.
I agree with the judge and I also think it would be confusing to people who don't know Oakland or the distance between the two airports. I lived in San Francisco for many years and I just cannot see Oakland using SF's name. Oakland is a fine airport in its own right but it isn't SFO.
It always amazed me how easily people get confused. Can't tell you how many times I dealt with pax checking in at Washington Reagan National for their Washington Dulles departure.
Garbage ruling. The term is descriptive and in no way solely associated with SFO. This PI will be overturned on appeal and the judge should he ashamed of himself.
*should be ashamed.
@Sal are you an expert in intellectual property?
“The Port has taken San Francisco’s valuable Mark and applied it to a smaller, less successful, and lower rated airport.”
That's like, the judge's opinion, man.
Anyway, that airport is literally built upon the SF Bay. How can it be forced to literally ignore its physical location? What kind of idiocy is this? It's not like they tell a lie or so or pretend to be SF airport. I mean, Stewart Airport is marketed...
“The Port has taken San Francisco’s valuable Mark and applied it to a smaller, less successful, and lower rated airport.”
That's like, the judge's opinion, man.
Anyway, that airport is literally built upon the SF Bay. How can it be forced to literally ignore its physical location? What kind of idiocy is this? It's not like they tell a lie or so or pretend to be SF airport. I mean, Stewart Airport is marketed as 'New York City' which I think is quite a stretch as it's about 70 miles away, and Torp Airport is marketed as Oslo while it's a nearly 80 mile, 2 hour drive from that city, and yet those airports are allowed to be called after them. But an airport that's literally built on a site, while not being allowed to name itself after its actual physical location is a clear case of misjudgement in my opinion.
Plus from an AvGeek point of view, OAK has forever one-upped SFO by being graced with the An-225 back in 2018 ;)
People land in SF only to come out and find themself in the middle of crime infested Oakland CA. Glad the judge ordered a stop to this. Oakland needs to lower their crime rate if they want more tourist.
Even if the crime rate were zero in Oakland, what tourist would want to visit? Just about the only thing that Gertrude Stein ever wrote that made any sense was her barb about Oakland: "There's no there there."
That's like saying tourists only fly to JFK and LGA because their final destination isn't Newark
I think it would be a big win for OAK to just get google to suggest it as a nearby airport to SFO. EWR gets that treatment when people search NYC, while OAK really only gets searched by locals
And it's amusing that the judge thinks that this name will steal business from SFO. Is SFO worried that United will move all services across the bay because of this? Or that Asian airlines will move? What're we talking here, a few discount carriers picking up some extra travelers?
Read the order. He didn't hold it would steal business. He said that the Port of Oakland infringed the SFO trademark and that consumers could be falsely led to believe that SFO and OAK were somehow associated, when in fact they have different owners and operators.
Can't Oakland just use San Francisco Bay in their marketing materials? "Arrive in the San Francisco Bay area at the Oakland airport". It's I it's not in the name then is it fair to use?
@stogieguy7 "Everyone knows where that is."
No, there are a billion Asians who may want to travel to northern California some day, and they don't know how close Oakland is to San Francisco. Look beyond the 50 miles beyond which people have ventured since the time of medieval peasants.
I'm reminded of when my niece was moving to California, and I asked where. She said "the Bay Area." I said, "oh, so Oakland." She asked how I knew that. I said if it were San Francisco, she'd have said so. Same thing for Berkeley, Marin County, or a million other places. Oakland is about the only place to say "Bay Area," so they don't scare people off by saying Oakland.
Yeah, no, that is totally wrong. The term you use depends on who you're talking to and the exact context. If the person you're addressing has never been to the Bay Area, you might tell them "I live in San Francisco", but if you live literally anywhere else in the Bay Area, you'd say "I live in the San Francisco Bay Area". If the person you're talking to is somewhat familiar with the geography, you...
Yeah, no, that is totally wrong. The term you use depends on who you're talking to and the exact context. If the person you're addressing has never been to the Bay Area, you might tell them "I live in San Francisco", but if you live literally anywhere else in the Bay Area, you'd say "I live in the San Francisco Bay Area". If the person you're talking to is somewhat familiar with the geography, you say "I live in the East Bay [or Marin County or Peninsula or whatever]". If they also live in the Bay Area, you say "I live in Milpitas [or whatever city you live in]".
To me, the only meaningful impact this will have is different blog post titles from Cranky....
Maybe the airports around here will have to go the way of London and start naming themselves:
-- San Francisco Millbrae airport
-- San Francisco Oakland airport
-- San Francisco San Jose airport
-- San Francisco Napa airport
I dunno it's not like Oakland is miles and miles away from San Francisco. It's right there
Seriously, the airport sits on the bay just like SFO does
I live in Oakland and have pointed out that this rebranding could be considered in the annals of failed marketing the New Coke of 2024:-)
For the younger generations, you will need to google "New Coke"
Delicious
The flavor of New Coke is Diet Coke.
I mean, they could always lean into the result for marketing purposes and ask IATA to rename their code to NSF, short for Not San Francisco, but, well, the acronym is already descriptive of their problem to begin with...
Not Safe For...
Let the customers decide. You have to be pretty dumb to want to fly to the s..t hole of Oakland.
Pleeeeze, many people fly into/out of OAK because it's the most convenient airport for a large number of communities in the east bay other than Oakland itself. You have to be pretty dumb to not realize that.
I wouldn't be surprised to see this get overturned, if OAK can show that it's a co-terminal to SFO for the San Francisco Bay CSA, in any continuing bilateral agreement that pre-exists SFO's cited trademark for use.
That's the main reason United is able to market EWR as New York City/NYC without any particular challenge.
There's a difference between how an airline markets and airport and the official name of the airport
No there isn't. Trademark infringement turns on the factor of "use/usage." In terms of an injunction (which is what happened here) it doesn't matter WHO is using it, all that matters is THAT someone else is using it.
JFK/LGA/EWR are controlled by the same airport authority which promotes all three as New York City gateways. Were that not the case, we might see a more agressive stance against Newark from the airports actually located in New York City.
There is a long history relating to accessing NYC via New Jersey both in aviation before LGA/JFK were built, and previously via rail. I did not get that sense about OAK when I lived in...
JFK/LGA/EWR are controlled by the same airport authority which promotes all three as New York City gateways. Were that not the case, we might see a more agressive stance against Newark from the airports actually located in New York City.
There is a long history relating to accessing NYC via New Jersey both in aviation before LGA/JFK were built, and previously via rail. I did not get that sense about OAK when I lived in SF proper. Of course, DL and UA will still dicker back in forth in their ads as to how much EWR really counts.
They could get aggressive as they want, but UA would still win that all day long, for the same reasons Continental did against challenges by competitors back in the day:
EWR was operating as "New York City" a decade before LaGuardia even had runways, and was also a gateway of entry to NYC in multiple foreign bilaterals before Kennedy/Idlewild was even built, and those agreements (including the infamous "Bermuda 2 Agreement with the UK")...
They could get aggressive as they want, but UA would still win that all day long, for the same reasons Continental did against challenges by competitors back in the day:
EWR was operating as "New York City" a decade before LaGuardia even had runways, and was also a gateway of entry to NYC in multiple foreign bilaterals before Kennedy/Idlewild was even built, and those agreements (including the infamous "Bermuda 2 Agreement with the UK") where then revised to list the two airports as co-terminals of each other, further codifying that status.
It's also a similar concept for BWI airport, which is why BA was successfully able to successfully utilize it as a Heathrow gateway under Bermuda 2.
The name of the actual city should come first and since Oakland is on the Bay, Oakland San Francisco Bay International Airport should work.
ERW's official name does not have "New York" in it. Also, it's owned and operated by the same entity as JFK and LGA. Part of why SFO won the injunction is that literally the entire name "San Francisco International Airport," which they trademarked decades ago, appears in the new name for OAK. And they successfully argued that this could lead the consumer to believe the two airports were somehow connected, when in fact they're separately...
ERW's official name does not have "New York" in it. Also, it's owned and operated by the same entity as JFK and LGA. Part of why SFO won the injunction is that literally the entire name "San Francisco International Airport," which they trademarked decades ago, appears in the new name for OAK. And they successfully argued that this could lead the consumer to believe the two airports were somehow connected, when in fact they're separately owned and operated (unlike in greater New York), which drags down SFO's brand because OAK is not as nice.
The Port of Oakland either ignored their lawyers or got bad legal advice.
"which they trademarked decades ago"
Did you even read the OP that you're responding to?
Changing an aiprot name, that's what creates confusion.
This sort of renaming is absurd and shows a lack of creativity, awareness and a lack of self confidence in their product. For decades and decades, it's been Oakland International Airport. Everyone knows where that is. It's not SFO, which is a good thing for many people. Now, absolutely incompetent and wrong-headed governance has destroyed Oakland's reputation and likely hurt the airport (especially the rampant crime in the airport gateway area along Hegenberger). But, that's...
This sort of renaming is absurd and shows a lack of creativity, awareness and a lack of self confidence in their product. For decades and decades, it's been Oakland International Airport. Everyone knows where that is. It's not SFO, which is a good thing for many people. Now, absolutely incompetent and wrong-headed governance has destroyed Oakland's reputation and likely hurt the airport (especially the rampant crime in the airport gateway area along Hegenberger). But, that's still no reason to go through this lame renaming charade.
Promote the airport for what it does best:
1) It's more convenient to more of the Bay Area;
2) It's easier and more user friendly than SFO;
3) Because of it's location, it's less prone to weather delays than SFO.
BTW - This is not just a California thing. There's Manchester-Boston Regional Airport (also absurd); there's BWI (I'm old enough to remember it as Friendship Airport, Baltimore), etc, etc. All of this smacks of idiotic group thing. Just embrace who you are, don't be a poser.
As an Oakland resident, I have been following this controversial renaming very closely. Many have pointed out that regional/distant airports do include the name of the larger metro airport (eg BWI, Manchester Boston Regional airport) BUT note that the local name comes first followed by the larger airport. Had the misguided souls at the Port of Oakland picked Oakland San Francisco Bay International Airport they might have avoided the lawsuit.
@GBOAC How is it 'controversial' to name it after the exact physical location? It's a bit like having two houses built on a volcano and one of them trying to force the other to keep silent about being a house on a volcano, claiming they own the sole right to be called the house on the volcano. That doesn't take away the fact that there are actually two houses on that volcano. Or in this...
@GBOAC How is it 'controversial' to name it after the exact physical location? It's a bit like having two houses built on a volcano and one of them trying to force the other to keep silent about being a house on a volcano, claiming they own the sole right to be called the house on the volcano. That doesn't take away the fact that there are actually two houses on that volcano. Or in this case: two airports in the same bay.
Despite the strong anti-intellectualism movement in the USA, I'm pretty sure that most people will understand the difference between OAK and SFO, just like people manage to understand the difference between JFK, LGA and EWR. Or LHR, LGW, LTN, SEN, LCY and STN in London.
But you're probably right though that they might have avoided a lawsuit by naming it Oakland - San Francisco Bay Airport, even though it won't change a thing. It's just the level of pettiness on display here that makes me shake my head in disbelief.
Almost like watching 2 trailer parks argue over naming rights.
Beautiful picture
Of San Francisco... not Oakland.
How about just get rid of "San Francisco" and just call it "Bay Area/Oakland"? I guess San Francisco is added since it serves the San Francisco region the same way New Yok is added to the Jets and football Giants as well as New York/Newark, it serves the New York metro region even though they're all in New Jersey.
Bay Area/Oakland was my first inclination as well, but I suspect Oakland/San Francisco Bay International (i.e., not leading with "San Francisco")might have been received with less hostility too.
Kind of like when the Anaheim Angels (baseball) changed their name to the Los Angeles Anaheim Angels. They aren't even in Los Angeles. They are in Orange County.
Ridiculous that there's this kind of fighting within a state. Shouldn't the common goal be to get customers to their desired destination at the lowest cost possible? Only in California lmao.
Trademarks are granted for a reason. Oakland is clearly violating it. The judge's ruling is sound and will be upheld.
Odd. I mean OAK sits on San Francisco Bay. Maybe Oakland/SF Bay International would work. Dropping the name of San Francisco and using the initials. As long as OAK shows up when searching for flights to SFO, no biggie really.