A court on Nov. 13 ordered the Oakland airport to stop using its new name, “San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport,” following a lawsuit filed by the city and county of San Francisco against the City of Oakland and Port of Oakland, the owners of the Oakland airport.
“The new name for the Oakland airport strongly implies affiliation with San Francisco and the San Francisco International Airport. This damages the goodwill and value of San Francisco’s Mark and deprives San Francisco of control over its Mark,” the court wrote.
The Port of Oakland informed San Francisco of its intent to rename the airport on March 29.
The Port concluded that the Oakland airport’s location is not well known outside of the San Francisco Bay Area, even though it is positioned for easy air travel into and out of the Bay Area.
It believes this lack of awareness combined with how flight search results are organized and displayed has created challenges for the Port in maintaining and securing nonstop flight routes.
Oakland’s Board of Port Commissioners first reviewed the proposed name change in an April 11 meeting and unanimously adopted the proposed ordinance in a May 9 meeting.
United Airlines, Japan Airlines, Vietnam Airlines, Aer Lingus, WestJet Airlines and Starlux Airlines objected to the proposed name change, believing travelers could or would experience confusion, while Southwest Airlines, Volaris, and Spirit Airlines supported the proposed name change.
San Francisco objected to the name change on April 1 and filed a lawsuit on April 18 for trademark infringement, unfair competition on the basis of false designation of origin, and common law trademark infringement, as the port continued with its planned name change.
The case schedule was extended by 90 days for mediation efforts, which were unsuccessful.
San Francisco filed the present motion for a preliminary injunction on Sept. 19, to which the City of Oakland and the Port of Oakland separately filed oppositions on Oct. 8.
A preliminary injunction is a temporary order issued before the case is fully resolved.
“It is extremely rare for a major U.S. airport to bear the name of a different city than the one that owns it,” said Melissa Andretta, director of aviation marketing and development at San Francisco International Airport.
San Francisco argues that the Oakland airport’s new name implies an affiliation, connection, or association between OAK and the San Francisco International Airport.
“By adopting the trademark ‘San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport,’ Oakland is trading on our goodwill and brand recognition, leading travelers to believe that our airports are the same or related to one another,” Andretta said.
She expressed San Francisco’s concern that any issues travelers have with Oakland’s airport will be mistakenly attributed to San Francisco, San Francisco International Airport (SFO), and the San Francisco International Airport Brand.
Andretta believes the confusion is very damaging to the SFO brand and could cause customers to forgo traveling with either airport.
“Oakland has much lower customer satisfaction than SFO,” Andretta said. “Travelers who mistakenly believe that SFO and the Oakland airport are controlled by the same city or management are now associating Oakland’s lesser services with ours.”
Additionally, San Francisco argues that the new name for the Oakland airport will cause customers to confuse it with SFO and buy tickets for the wrong airport.
San Francisco claims that SFO staff logged 15 instances between June 18 and Aug. 23 of visitors showing up at SFO intending to have flown through Oakland.
The court concluded that San Francisco is unlikely to prevail on its point of customer sale confusion, “given the high degree of customer care and the low likelihood of confusion at point of sale.”
However, the court said none of the Port’s arguments address San Francisco’s argument of confusion concerning affiliation, connection, or association.
It described San Francisco Airport’s trademark for “San Francisco International Airport” and its “exclusive right to use the mark” as incontestable, adding that the Port cannot argue the trademark is “merely descriptive.”
“Including ‘San Francisco’ in the name of the Oakland airport 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 and is highly likely to be confusing,” the ruling said.
The court noted the importance for an injunction, saying San Francisco Airport “will suffer irreparable harm if there is no injunction, and the public interest and the balance of hardships also favor an injunction.”
