Airline company lawyer accuses car company lawyer of destroying romance and magic of corporate branding

Jarndyce and Jarndyce: Lawyers representing the owner of a tuppeny-haypenny Asian airline have this week taken a firm that builds downmarket cars for confused pensioners to task regarding the ownership of this brand they legitimately acquired – at least according to all these documents, writes our litigation correspondent, Felix Time-Machine.

The airline firm, which also owns a load of other companies, had already decided that one of the things it owned – an F1 Team – should be named after something it didn’t own but could buy because it made it sound cooler and better, this market research focus group poll told them.

After a largely disappointing performance from the F1 team however, another market research firm the airline company employed to analyse reasons for the failure, discovered that the level of coolness could be improved if the name were given an additional prefix because – for some reason – that was more legitimate or something.


A pile of important legal documents, yesterday

It was only when the airline company announced the addition of the extra word that the car company became angry however; arguing that it was the rightful owner of the name or rather, the name as it appeared as 2 contiguous words in that order, and at least according to these other documents it had in its possession even if – admittedly – it hadn’t really looked at them too closely, to be honest.

“My client is absolutely livid at the bloke from the airline company”, Spartacus Shitswill of the firm Fire, Pestilence and Ambulance Chasing ejaculated.

“It clearly states in this sub-clause, section 2, paragraph 7, page 152 of the contract that my client is the sole owner of these 2 words when used in conjunction to symbolise in principle or spirit this apparently significant entity from the past and that, insomuch and insofar as these words are conjoined subsequently, my client and my client alone has sole authority when discharging the usage of these 2 words especially – and this is key – when a large sum of money is at stake,” his foul smelling breath exhaled.

The vehement certainty of the car manufacturer’s lawyer however, failed to dissuade the airline’s legal representative from making equally robust noises on behalf of his client, “blah, blah, blah sub judice, blah blah blah Old Bailey blah blah blah m’lud”, Ferdinand Death-Mask III of Apocalypse, Personal Injury and Scabies informed us.

“Though we’d like to stress that any opportunity to keep the whole argument rolling along backwards and forwards mysteriously for the next 5 years would be something we’d happily discuss with our opposite numbers,” he added.

Your fond memories now subject to court injunction

“On the face of it, this does seem like a pointless and loathsome argument between 2 emotionless corporate behemoths blinded by greed and cynical opportunism, completely oblivious to the nuances of human history,” Professor Troy Feeshus of The University of Legal ’Ting told us when we asked him to tell us something.

“But actually…no – hang on. It is that isn’t it? You’re right; they’ just a massive pair of corporate wankers,“ he concluded.

Pointed out the writer of this piece,“if I have to write one more satirical article about how grubby, cynical and depressing this whole process is, I will stab myself in the eye with a fucking biro”.

Leave a Reply