AM. AIRLINES, INC. V. SKIPLAGGED, INC.
September 23, 2024
Eckert Seamans has prepared the information in this update for educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice nor substitute for legal advice. Neither your receipt of information from this website nor your use of this website to contact Eckert Seamans or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship, as the firm may, for example, already represent another party involved in your matter. Accordingly, you should not provide confidential information to Eckert Seamans. Persons seeking legal advice should consult a licensed professional attorney in their state. The firm’s Terms of Use, Legal Notice, and Disclaimer detailed herein are expressly incorporated into the Aviation Regulatory Update.
On July 31, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled on Motions for Summary Judgment filed by both parties to the above-referenced action. The Defendant, Skiplagged, is a national travel logistic company that offers discounted airline tickets through “hidden-city ticketing.” Rather than purchasing a direct flight, it is sometimes cheaper to buy an airline ticket with a layover at the intended destination and then abandon the rest of the route. For example, “a ticket from Dallas to New York with a layover in Charlotte may be cheaper than a ticket straight from Dallas to Charlotte.” Skiplagged acts as a middleman, purchasing the ticket, and then sending the end consumer the flight information, a business model disliked by airlines. This system also required Skiplagged to coach up customers in order to avoid detection from suspicious airline personnel. This included teaching customers key phrases to prevent luggage from being checked, since checked luggage is processed to arrive at the final destination listed on the ticket. As a result, Skiplagged has faced many lawsuits from airlines dating back to 2014. In August of 2023, American Airlines filed its own lawsuit for trademark and copyright infringement, breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, and unfair competition. The parties both filed for a Motion for Summary Judgement which resulted in a mixed result for the parties. The Court held that Skiplagged was entitled to summary judgment on American’s breach of contract claim, reasoning that the statute of limitations had run as this claim was tied to date that American first learned of Skiplagged’s conduct. The Court also held that American was entitled to summary judgment on its claim for copyright infringement. The Court explained that the use of American’s flight symbol on Skiplagged’s website and marketing materials was not fair use. Lastly, the Court found summary judgment to be improper regarding American’s claim for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The Court explained that there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether American Airlines delayed filing suit, prejudicing Skiplagged, and whether Skipplagged intentionally infringed on American’s trademark. Ultimately, this mixed decision guarantees that the litigation will continue.
This Aviation Blog is intended to keep readers current on developments in the law. It is not intended to be legal advice. If you have any questions, please contact Evelyn Sahr at 202.659.6622 or esahr@eckertseamans.com; Drew Derco at 202-659-6665 or dderco@eckertseamans.com; Jay Julien at 202.659.6648 or jjulien@eckertseamans.com, Andrew Orr at 202-659-6625 or aorr@eckertseamans.com, or Samanta Walter at 412.566.1920 or swalter@eckertseamans.com, or any other attorney at Eckert Seamans with whom you have been working.
Share This Post
Authors
