SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Beyond trademark infringement, the city of Oakland’s change of its airport name to include “San Francisco” is also confusing travelers, attorneys for the city of San Francisco argued Thursday.
During a preliminary injunction hearing Thursday afternoon, attorney Bobby Ghajar said San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is the only entity that uses “San Francisco” to denote an airport and that the city has used the trademark since 1954.
San Francisco sued Oakland in April after Oakland announced plans to change its airport’s name from Metropolitan Oakland International Airport to San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport this past May. The city on the west side of the bay wants a federal judge to order Oakland to immediately stop using the proposed name and to find Oakland has infringed SFO’s mark. The city also wants Oakland ordered to destroy any materials containing the new name and seeks unspecified fees and damages
“It’s virtually unprecedented that two different owners would operate two different airports with the same name,” Ghajar said at the hearing Thursday.
Ghajar said Oakland should have known changing the name of its airport would cause confusion to travelers, air carriers, ride-hail drivers and more. He also argued the similarity of the names could cause irreparable reputational harm to SFO and the city of San Francisco as Google and travel purveyors like Priceline adopt the new name.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson noted that Oakland doesn’t control what Google or other search engines do.
“It’s the consequence of choosing a confusing name and putting it out there, and that’s why this is so dangerous,” Ghajar replied. “It’s not Google’s fault or Priceline’s fault. The fault lies on Oakland for choosing such a similar name.”
Oakland’s action falls under the umbrella of relevant confusion, Ghajar said, and the East Bay city did not do any research to see if the name change would confuse travelers. He said that without an injunction, the new name could harm San Francisco economically and reputationally.
When it changed the name of the airport, Oakland claimed it did so to better educate travelers that its airport was also on the San Francisco Bay. Hixson asked Ghajar if he had any reason to doubt Oakland’s explanation for the name change.
“It doesn’t trump our trademark rights,” Ghajar replied. “This is a way for them to create confusion for their benefit to the detriment of the city.”
Brandi Balanda, arguing for the Port of Oakland, said San Francisco did not meet its burden for relief. She noted the Ninth Circuit has ruled that trademark infringement does not cover general confusion, only purchase decisions born from confusion. The direct consumers at airports are the airlines, not consumers who purchase tickets, and that consumers book flights to places, not brands, such as SFO, she said.
“Airports are really the landlords for those airlines,” and there’s no evidence that any airline is confused, Balanda said.
Balanda showed Hixson evidence that a customer searching for flights that uses the term “San Francisco” brings up results for three airports; SFO, Oakland and San Jose Mineta International Airport.
“This is how airlines display airports in areas where there is more than one airport,” Balanda explained.
Clicking to purchase a ticket shows more information, Balanda said, in plain language where the airport a traveler wants to fly into is located.
“It plainly dispels any argument of confusion. SFO has produced no evidence that anyone purchased a ticket because our airport was affiliated with SFO,” she said.
Balanda said San Francisco’s argument is contradictory, and that since Oakland changed its airport name SFO’s traffic has actually increased, with more passengers than in the same period versus last year and continued positive reviews and rankings.
The average consumer takes great care when purchasing an airline ticket, Balanda said, and that there are multiple screens showing a traveler where they are going before they ultimately purchase their ticket.
Balanda said using the most careless consumer as the standard does not meet the merits, and that San Francisco had offered no testimony from any airline, passengers or businesses regarding widespread confusion, instead relying on social media posts and Reddit comments.
Hixson took the matter under submission.