What you're seeing IS the true legal system. While there are black and white laws and bylaws, the purpose of judges are to interpret, and deliver, rulings based on rational decisions for the betterment of the whole where black and white doesn't exist (the majority of the decision making process in the judiciary department)

What is PERCEIVED as rational depends on what the desired outcome is to the reader / individual. I've seen rulings such as this many, many times where a judge states "opinions" on harm rendered to businesses rather than rulings where legal code exists. That's their job and their opinion, unfortunate or not, is the only one that matters. Harm on investors / owners / employees is a very, very touchy subject in the legal arena and this decision wasn't as biased as it appears. The overwhelming majority of decisions where it appears individuals were "railroaded", and harm was done by one company, the intruding company will NOT then be rewarded if a legal battle, such as this, needed to be heard by the court.

I know the thought that, "Well, they bought the assets and that includes the brand" is likely with some but that is not a true statement as SEC laws prohibit this type of circumvention of a true merger STRICTLY because of how JO wanted it to happen. He wanted to spare the expense of a merger (payout to investors of Aloha) and all the legal fees associated with the process and go straight to what benefits him. If the Aloha name was so financially important, why not buy Aloha Airlines and merge the operations? JO tried a shrewed, and what he thought was brilliant, move to gain a brand and saving lots of money and the SEC prevents his tactic for the reasons specified. I don't know if he just didn't know this or thought it was just another infamous "recommendation" vs. one with legal protection.

It has always been my opinion that getting to use the Aloha name would be, in essence, corporate theft and would not be allowed because of legal ramifications, ie. the "harm" discussed in the ruling, not the judges personal "feeling". There are laws and processes in place with the SEC for mergers where one company wants to gain a benefit by utilizing a logo or brand. Directly competing with a company in hopes to force liquidation AND THEN making a side agreemement for the betterment of ONE individual (the biggest investor in the former Aloha) was never going to be allowed.

I, sincerely, disagree that another Hawaiian judge would have looked at precedent any differently. The system allows appellate courts, let's see what happens there if JO wants to spend the money.