Re: Yosemite to change iconic names

I am beyond ticked off about this. I hope DNC never gets a park concession again. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/yosemite-famed-hotel-change-trademark-dispute-36295861

It seems to me that the Park Service shares some blame with this entire issue. It seems ridiculous but it also would seem as though it should be a settled matter of the contract or trademark law. What I can't tell from the story is whether they intend on the name changes being temporary---or even if the announcement is a negotiating ploy to get DNC to settle. I've heard it repeated several times that the Park Service required DNC to acquire and protect the trademarks and if that is true, and there was no provision or thought on what would happen if the concessionaire ever changed, well that is the fault of the Park Service and I don't blame DNC for protecting the trademark rights.

Sorry Pizza Guy...

Half a Pizza Dome Pie

Pizza and a Half a Dome Pie

Half a Dome Pizza Pie

Half a Pizza and a Dome

---

Quote
chick-on
Sorry Pizza Guy...

Half a Pizza Dome Pie

Pizza and a Half a Dome Pie

Half a Dome Pizza Pie

Half a Pizza and a Dome

If they try to change or tamper with Curry Pizza Deck I'm considering a hostile takeover like the Oregon situation. Anyone care to join me?

We have ways of dealing with DNC:

I am not saying that the park service doesn't share in the blame because they should have included in their contracts a clause preventing this not only in Yosemite but in other national parks. DNC also is claiming copyright to the trademark for the name of the Kennedy Space Center and I am just waiting for the backlash if that happens.

Quote
parklover
I am not saying that the park service doesn't share in the blame because they should have included in their contracts a clause preventing this not only in Yosemite but in other national parks. DNC also is claiming copyright to the trademark for the name of the Kennedy Space Center and I am just waiting for the backlash if that happens.

I heard it was "Space Shuttle Atlantis". Apparently NASA says it's OK and that if DNC has to leave they'll be contractually obligate to transfer the trademark, which is just for a logo.

I stand corrected, it was a misunderstanding of something my son told me. Here is a link to the story of the Atlantis trademark.
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-010816a-space-shuttle-atlantis-trademark.html

Quote
chicagocwright
It seems to me that the Park Service shares some blame with this entire issue. It seems ridiculous but it also would seem as though it should be a settled matter of the contract or trademark law. What I can't tell from the story is whether they intend on the name changes being temporary---or even if the announcement is a negotiating ploy to get DNC to settle. I've heard it repeated several times that the Park Service required DNC to acquire and protect the trademarks and if that is true, and there was no provision or thought on what would happen if the concessionaire ever changed, well that is the fault of the Park Service and I don't blame DNC for protecting the trademark rights.

Maybe you don't blame the DNC. I certainly do. DNC knew perfectly well that they had been awarded the trademarks for the duration of their contract. The contract certainly never said otherwise. The question is ambiguous at best. They have chosen a far-fetched interpretation of the language in the old contract, and they ought to be sued into the ground by the government. But the [censored] lawyers always win.

If we had a functional congress, this would have been clarified and fixed by an new law about a week after DNC cooked up this outrageous claim. It should have been passed by unanimous voice vote. But, when did our congress ever do what it is supposed to do?

Quote
wherever

Quote
chicagocwright
It seems to me that the Park Service shares some blame with this entire issue. It seems ridiculous but it also would seem as though it should be a settled matter of the contract or trademark law. What I can't tell from the story is whether they intend on the name changes being temporary---or even if the announcement is a negotiating ploy to get DNC to settle. I've heard it repeated several times that the Park Service required DNC to acquire and protect the trademarks and if that is true, and there was no provision or thought on what would happen if the concessionaire ever changed, well that is the fault of the Park Service and I don't blame DNC for protecting the trademark rights.

Maybe you don't blame the DNC. I certainly do. DNC knew perfectly well that they had been awarded the trademarks for the duration of their contract. The contract certainly never said otherwise. The question is ambiguous at best. They have chosen a far-fetched interpretation of the language in the old contract, and they ought to be sued into the ground by the government. But the [censored] lawyers always win.

If we had a functional congress, this would have been clarified and fixed by an new law about a week after DNC cooked up this outrageous claim. It should have been passed by unanimous voice vote. But, when did our congress ever do what it is supposed to do?

I don't like the idea of Congress getting involved in the middle of a contract dispute even if it does benefit the greater good. It smacks to me of confiscation of property by the government. I'm not saying that is what is going on in this situation. It just seems to me, as I noted, that this should be clear in the contract. Or clear in Trademark Law. Trademark Law has provisions against bad faith attempts at trademarking so maybe that applies. From the articles we see that NPS shares the view that the trademarks have value that DNC seemingly own. So is this just a matter of price? Is this all a negotiating ploy? IF, IF it is true that the Park Service agrees in principle that the trademarks have value that DNC owns, then I tend to agree with DNC on the value of the trademarks. Simply put in that scenario, the Park Service should have had a pre-determined price for the trademarks when they first directed DNC to set them up.

But we don't know the facts of the case--that is deriving facts like this from media accounts is dangerous.

You state that the park service directed DNC to copyright those names. Baloney. They were advised to protect the names. By that reasoning, the local police have the right to quietly post a claim on every historic name in our whole town, and then hold the proper owners up for ransom. After all, the police are there to protect and preserve.

You think that congress should keep out of private legal disputes.

Congress made those laws in the first place. It may be true that the wheels of justice could grind for many years, and eventually the DNC copyrights would be shown to be nonsense. That's because the legal mind gives no weight to the injustice caused by the years during which the disputed names cannot be used by the government or its proper concessionaire. One of the functions of congress is to fix such situations, especially when the issue is simple. In this case, the issue is very simple. It is not true that in every dispute the arguments of both sides have merit, and the party that benefits from endless appeals and delays should reap the benefit of justice delayed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2016 05:29PM by wherever.

Quote
chicagocwright
It smacks to me of confiscation of property by the government.

More like confiscation of public property by DNC.

Quote
wherever
If we had a functional congress, this would have been clarified and fixed by an new law about a week after DNC cooked up this outrageous claim. It should have been passed by unanimous voice vote. But, when did our congress ever do what it is supposed to do?

That would probably be considered a "bill of attainder" if Congress stepped in and did that and would be unconstitutional on its face. What Congress can do, however, is hold hearings on the issue or disqualify Delaware North from getting future contracts for acting in bad faith. So I would urge people to call their congressional reps and tell them that you are outraged by this. At very least, this would hit DNC in the pocket book, which seems to be the only thing they care about.

People might be able to express their opinions to Delaware North via email as well, where they seem to use [first initial][last name]@delawarenorth.com as email addresses. List of company execs here: http://www.delawarenorth.com/about/senior-management

Finally, DNC looks to be proud of the fact that they are a "family owned and operated business" (http://www.delawarenorth.com/about/family-leadership) so I'm sure an appeal to good old fashioned family values such as stewardship and historical protection might warm their hearts. The Jacobs family also owns the Boston Bruins, so think about that when you're renewing your season ticket subscriptions this year.

Doesn't a bill of attainder require some sort of crime be involved?

---

Old Dude

Quote
mrcondron
Doesn't a bill of attainder require some sort of crime be involved?

Yep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

A change of trademark law certainly wouldn't qualify.

Quote
eeek

Quote
mrcondron
Doesn't a bill of attainder require some sort of crime be involved?

Yep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

A change of trademark law certainly wouldn't qualify.

Sounds more like ex post facto, which I believe is limited for civil issues.

Quote
mrcondron
Doesn't a bill of attainder require some sort of crime be involved?

Not really. Legislative punishment of entities and corporations can be considered bills of attainder. Whatever DNC is claiming here is a drop in the bucket compared to what they could lose in the future through negative press and political pushback regarding prospective business. The Yosemite contract is just a small piece of the family business. If there's a large enough outcry, it would be foolish for them to pursue this any further.

What about any action being protective of the park's names as opposed to being punitive against DNC?

---

Old Dude



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2016 06:35AM by mrcondron.

I looked it up, and "The Awahnee" was first trademarked in 1988 by the Yosemite Valley & Curry Company. The address was in Universal City, so it was under the MCA ownership.

Then I found Wawona trademarked in 2003 and 2002. "Yosemite Lodge" was trademarked in 2002, but only for a specific logo. Badger Pass was trademarked less than 15 years ago. I would think that a good trademark attorney could tear these apart for being taken in bad faith given that this was government property and they had no right to trademark the names.

I found this article:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article53171230.html

NPS claims that they were never notified by DNC that they were trademarking those names. I think that NPS has a good case that they applied for the trademarks in bad faith. I think NPS would have sought to block it had they had the opportunity.

it is actually Yosemite Park and Curry Co. And this would be a good time to go back and have them run things again!

Quote
markfire74
it is actually Yosemite Park and Curry Co. And this would be a good time to go back and have them run things again!

Yeah - I found myself cleaning that up posting about this somewhere else. However, there are a bunch of names that some people might not instantly understand, such that MCA/Universal was the owner, and when they got sold out to Matushita (Panasonic) they were forced to sell the Yosemite concession.

More on this story...

Delaware North, the company that has done a mediocre job running the concessions at Yosemite Park has now lost the contract to a competitor, and has now announced that it is asking to be compensated for the loss of the equity it has created in the brands names of Yosemite--such names as Wawona Hotel, Yosemite Lodge at the Falls, Badger Pass Ski Area, Curry Village and the Ahwahnee Hotel. (This list updated for increased accuracy--you can't be too careful with these SOBs!)

And isn't it convenient that they don't have names...they are just the impersonal corporate entity Delaware North? So just in case you were wondering, here is a link to their "executives" webpage. Yep. All those smiling faces are the ones who made the decision to force you, the American People, to buy back the names of the treasured icons of your national parks. At a huge profit for them. http://www.delawarenorth.com/about/senior-management

y the way, the photo on this page shows an anonymous individual holding his arm up, welcoming the money that he expects to be falling from the sky as a result of this bloodsucking scheme. The NPS has decided to rename those facilities, rather than pay ransom for them to Delaware North. It makes you proud to be an American and part of the system that gave birth to Delaware North.

By the way, if you'd like to do so, you can do a web search for Delaware North to find their corporate email address so that you can send them a note to tell them exactly what you think of them. We did that. You can also get a list of the other concessions that Delaware North runs, so that you can boycott them or make their lives less pleasant. We've done that, too. Here's a link to the whole sad story: http://news.yahoo.com/yosemite-park-landmarks-names-amid-trademark-tussle-070827436.html;_ylt=AwrSbnSWbppWfOAAoIJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByNWU4cGh1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--

---

Check our our website: http://www.backpackthesierra.com/
Or just read a good mystery novel set in the Sierra; https://www.amazon.com/Danger-Falling-Rocks-Paul-Wagner/dp/0984884963

I just spent some time reading DNC's FB page and if the comments are just the tip of the iceberg of ticked off people, I am betting that by the end of next week DNC will have lost $50 million of business from people boycotting them. Those $7 drinks and $5 pieces of pizza at the sports revenues add up not to mention the other places they run. We have been talking about possibly going to Yellowstone this summer and I am going to make sure I know which things they run and will not buy anything there. Xanterra will get all of my money.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2016 11:34AM by parklover.

This is not the first name change. Where's Camp Curry?

Quote
Dave
This is not the first name change. Where's Camp Curry?

In 1970 the community of Camp Curry decided to change it's post office name to Curry Village which is a different scenario than what we are seeing here.

Sigh... and I do have to wonder about how most of these were granted... but I think we can do better in renaming these places.

The Ahwahnee: I'd go with "Mather Lodge" here--it was his idea to build a signature hotel in Yosemite, and there should be more named for him in the Yosemite area than San Francisco's former lumber camp. "Royal Arch Lodge" also works.

Curry Village: "Hantaville" (to honor DNC's contribution to lodging cleanliness standards), "Pizzaville" (for obvious reasons), or sell the naming rights to the Golden State Warriors and let them name it "Steph Curry Village"... :-)

Yosemite Lodge: "Camp 4 Annex", "Sunnyside Lodge", "Residence One Inn", "Eagle Peak Lodge"...

Wawona Hotel: I like "Big Trees", but "Clark's Hotel" would honor the first guardian of the Yosemite Grant.

Badger Pass: "Upper Stanford Point" :-) The idea of having a ski area in Yosemite was largely due to Donald Tressider, who was also a former president of Stanford University.

Or, we can just go on calling these places what we always have called them until all of this blows over.

You only have to change a name slightly to avoid trademark violations. The Ahwahnee could become The Ahwaneechee Hotel or the Ahwahnee Meadow Hotel. Yosemite Lodge could be The Lodge at Yosemite. Curry Village could take a cue from Prince and could be The Lodging Formally Known as Curry Village or just again call it Camp Curry. Badger Pass could be Badger's Paw Pass. And so on.........

The Ahwahnee: I like your suggestion.

Curry Village: Snark aside, I think this needs to remain Curry Village for historic reasons.

Yosemite Lodge: If it were me I think I'd name it "Yosemite Falls Lodge" - with or without this dispute.

Wawona Hotel: For historic reasons I think this needs to remain Wawona Hotel - even more so than with Curry Village.

Badger Pass: Tressider Resort? The initial idea, of course, was that people would learn about travel on skis at this place then head out into the backcountry.

Quote
ttilley
...Curry Village: Snark aside, I think this needs to remain Curry Village for historic reasons....

For historic reasons it should be Camp Curry. That's what it was several decades back when I was there as a kid and that was the name when it was established in 1899.

Makes sense.

The new proposed names are so awful, you would have think that whoever came up with them and thought they were good or even ok would be crazy. That got me thinking that they couldn't be that crazy, but maybe they were crazy like a fox. They must have known that proposing to change the names at all would be highly controversial. To make it even more controversial they made the names absurd so that there would be almost no support for the name change. I've seen this in the multiple newspapers/websites so must have gotten a lot of attention and a lot of bad PR for DNC. That might not make it worth it anymore for them to keep fighting this from a PR standpoint or maybe even lowered the value for the trademarks as to undermine the lawsuit.

The other thing is that some of these places are on the National Register of Historic Places:
National Register of Historic Places listings in Yosemite National Park. I'm not sure of all the details and requirements on being on the National Register, but I think changing the name would be against some rule. I guess as long as there are no physical changes it would would be ok? Anyone have any insight on this?

My thoughts exactly, Buster. " Let's meet at the Majestic Yosemite Hotel for a drink later" I don't think so!!! It will ALWAYS be the Ahwahnee to me. (and everyone I know). Let's hope your "crazy like a fox" theory holds true.

New drama... "DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. is shocked and disappointed the National Park Service would use beloved names as a bargaining chip and announce unnecessary name changes."
http://tinyurl.com/h69ajgo

Half Dome Pizza Village...I'd go there!

On DNC's Yosemite website. What they say http://www.yosemitepark.com/questions.aspx

Name changes prompted to eliminate trademark issues for new concessioner

Yosemite National Park Superintendent Don Neubacher announced today that the names of several buildings and facilities within the park will be renamed to eliminate potential trademark infringement issues with the current concessioner of Yosemite, DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. (DNCY), a subsidiary of the Delaware North Companies. The name changes will impact several iconic buildings and landmarks listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

After a prospectus document that announced the contract availability was released in July 2014 and the offers were reviewed, the National Park Service selected Yosemite Hospitality LLC, a subsidiary of Aramark, to be the new primary concessioner in Yosemite National Park. The concessioner provides lodging, retail, recreational services, and food to over four million annual visitors to Yosemite. Because the current concessioner, DNCY, claimed ownership and the right to payment for tradenames, trademarks, and other intellectual property that it argues is worth over $50 million, the National Park Service included the option to change the names of these sites as part of the prospectus.

“While it is unfortunate that we must take this action, changing the names of these facilities will help us provide seamless service to the American public during the transition to the new concessioner. Yosemite National Park belongs to the American people,” stated Neubacher. “This action will not affect the historic status of the facilities, as they are still important cultural icons to the National Park Service and the public. Our stewardship of these properties is unwavering.”

Without prior National Park Service concurrence, DNCY or its predecessor had previously trademarked or service-marked several nationally significant properties in the park including The Ahwahnee Hotel, Badger Pass, Curry Village, Wawona Hotel, and Yosemite Lodge. DNCY also trademarked the phrase “Yosemite National Park.” The National Park Service is currently in litigation in part over these trademarks, service-marks, and other intellectual property.

The new names were chosen in order to minimize the impact on visitors and include:

• Yosemite Lodge at the Falls to become: Yosemite Valley Lodge
• The Ahwahnee to become: The Majestic Yosemite Hotel
• Curry Village to become: Half Dome Village
• Wawona Hotel to become: Big Trees Lodge
• Badger Pass Ski Area to become: Yosemite Ski & Snowboard Area

Yosemite National Park celebrated its 125th Anniversary last year. The park welcomes over four million visitors from all over the world each year and serves as a strong economic engine for the region and local communities. Yosemite National Park generates $535 million in economic benefit to the local region and directly supports 6,261 jobs. The park is home to Yosemite Falls, the tallest waterfall in North America, and iconic rock formations such as Half Dome and El Capitan. The park also features approximately 90 different species of mammals and over 1500 species of flowering plants.

This isn't gonna hold up in court IMO. Delaware is just sore.

Quote
eeek
The new names were chosen in order to minimize the impact on visitors and include:

• Yosemite Lodge at the Falls to become: Yosemite Valley Lodge
• The Ahwahnee to become: The Majestic Yosemite Hotel
• Curry Village to become: Half Dome Village
• Wawona Hotel to become: Big Trees Lodge
• Badger Pass Ski Area to become: Yosemite Ski & Snowboard Area

Hopefully the names are lame because NPS is planning for them to be only temporary, but if they have to change them long-term, I would suggest far better names like:

Hotel Tissaack for the Ahwahnee and Tutokanula Village for Curry Village.

Yosemite Creek Lodge for the Yosemite Lodge (at the Falls) and the Galen Clark Inn for the Wawona Hotel.

And rename Badger Pass to Nic Fiore Meadows.

.

Well done! I like all of these choices!

I agree that the park service is responsible in that they should have secured these titles long ago.
They need to fix this once and forever.
Federal Government needs to pony up whatever it takes to buy these names or tell these corporations where to go flat out.

Quote
K2
Federal Government needs to pony up whatever it takes to buy these names or tell these corporations where to go flat out.

The problem is DNC putting valuations on the trade marks that far exceeds their real value. It's probably just a ploy to up the amount they receive from their replacement.

Quote
eeek

Quote
K2
Federal Government needs to pony up whatever it takes to buy these names or tell these corporations where to go flat out.

The problem is DNC putting valuations on the trade marks that far exceeds their real value. It's probably just a ploy to up the amount they receive from their replacement.

After the uproar yesterday I've continued to think about this. And I keep on going back to the idea that it is unbelievable that this isn't somehow part of the contract. So IF it is true that DNC owns the trademarks, and IF it is true that the Park Service agrees they own them and agrees they should be compensated for their value, then this is all an argument over price? $$$

If so, I'm not sure I understand the conclusion that the "valuations on the trademarks far exceed their real value". It seems to me that these trademarks are EXTREMELY valuable. Just look at the public uproar over the situation. People care about the names and the symbols giving them inherent value. How could anyone make an argument any different?

Quote
chicagocwright
It seems to me that these trademarks are EXTREMELY valuable.

They are only valuable in context. It's not like DNC could take them somewhere else.

This is in fact one of the government's arguments against the high value that DNC places on the trademarks: the trademark valuation was done using the methodology you would use to evaluate a trademark like "Trump Hotel" or "The Waldorf Astoria", where a lot of value has been created and is maintained around a brand name, and thus you may choose to stay at "The Trump" or "The Waldorf Astoria", and not "Motel 6", based a lot on the name--and not, say, the actual location of the property.

The government's argument is that most visitors choose to stay in the building formerly known as "The Ahwahnee" not because of its name, but rather because of its architecture, location, views, and service level. If the same number of people end up staying in "The Majestic Yosemite Lodge" as "The Ahwahnee", that would imply that the actual brand of "The Ahwahnee" has little value. I suspect this will be the case, given that most Yosemite lodgings are sold out most of the year. Actual examples: Renaming "Yosemite Lodge" to "Yosemite Lodge at the Falls" had no impact, nor did renaming "Sunnyside" to "Camp 4", or "Camp Curry" to "Curry Village", or "Tuolumne Meadows Lodge" to "Tuolumne Meadows High Sierra Camp" (or was it the other way around :-) )

Yes, in theory without a trademark in place someone could build another "Ahwahnee Hotel" elsewhere and attempt to lure customers based on this name, and there is probably some value in having the trademark to make a lawsuit against such an establishment easier to win, but it's doubtful that with the internet, Yelp, and this forum, that such a business would be successful, and certainly no large company would attempt such a deceit, so the cost savings there wouldn't be that great.

Anyway, I'm meeting JKW and the Great Pink One at the not-quite-under-new-management Yosemite Valley Lodge cafeteria tomorrow morning. Hopefully they'll have a report on The Majestic Hotel and the Half Dome Village. Anyone going to the Yosemite Ski and Snowboard area?

Quote
eeek

Quote
chicagocwright
It seems to me that these trademarks are EXTREMELY valuable.

They are only valuable in context. It's not like DNC could take them somewhere else.

Quote
basilbop

Yes, in theory without a trademark in place someone could build another "Ahwahnee Hotel" elsewhere and attempt to lure customers based on this name, and there is probably some value in having the trademark to make a lawsuit against such an establishment easier to win, but it's doubtful that with the internet, Yelp, and this forum, that such a business would be successful, and certainly no large company would attempt such a deceit, so the cost savings there wouldn't be that great.

I would not put it past DNC if they tried to change the name of the Tenaya Lodge, located in Fish Camp, to the Ahwahnee. It's something they might try to do.

.

I'm amazed that the government didn't already own all those names, particularly the historic ones like Wawona and Ahwahnee. If what the DNC says is true, that they had to purchase trademarks owned by the previous company (Yosemite Camp and Curry?) then why not make Aramark do the same?

I feel like the govt. dropped the ball and should just buy the damn names and be done with it.

Quote
hotrod4x5
I'm amazed that the government didn't already own all those names, particularly the historic ones like Wawona and Ahwahnee. If what the DNC says is true, that they had to purchase trademarks owned by the previous company (Yosemite Camp and Curry?) then why not make Aramark do the same?

I feel like the govt. dropped the ball and should just buy the damn names and be done with it.

The issue is not that the NPS does not require or agree to the fact that Aramark has to purchase the trademarks but the fact that they feel that the price that DNC wants for them is over inflated. That is what they are arguing about - the price.

Quote
parklover

Quote
hotrod4x5
I'm amazed that the government didn't already own all those names, particularly the historic ones like Wawona and Ahwahnee. If what the DNC says is true, that they had to purchase trademarks owned by the previous company (Yosemite Camp and Curry?) then why not make Aramark do the same?

I feel like the govt. dropped the ball and should just buy the damn names and be done with it.

The issue is not that the NPS does not require or agree to the fact that Aramark has to purchase the trademarks but the fact that they feel that the price that DNC wants for them is over inflated. That is what they are arguing about - the price.

The price should have been set before the contract was signed.

There needs to be a new law that any buildings, locations, properties, etc. located on federal land cannot be trademarked by a private company. The American people own the national parks and we should own the names of those places too.

Quote
hotrod4x5

Quote
parklover

Quote
hotrod4x5
I'm amazed that the government didn't already own all those names, particularly the historic ones like Wawona and Ahwahnee. If what the DNC says is true, that they had to purchase trademarks owned by the previous company (Yosemite Camp and Curry?) then why not make Aramark do the same?

I feel like the govt. dropped the ball and should just buy the damn names and be done with it.

The issue is not that the NPS does not require or agree to the fact that Aramark has to purchase the trademarks but the fact that they feel that the price that DNC wants for them is over inflated. That is what they are arguing about - the price.

The price should have been set before the contract was signed.

There needs to be a new law that any buildings, locations, properties, etc. located on federal land cannot be trademarked by a private company. The American people own the national parks and we should own the names of those places too.

I agree. I think that after Xanterra tried to do this in Grand Canyon a few years ago, a law would have been passed then to prevent this. Unfortunately, without the NPS's knowledge DNC had already obtained trademarks on other names that had not been trademarked by previous concessionaires before the Grand Canyon incident so I don't know how that would have affected this issue.

Quote
parklover

Quote
hotrod4x5

Quote
parklover

Quote
hotrod4x5
I'm amazed that the government didn't already own all those names, particularly the historic ones like Wawona and Ahwahnee. If what the DNC says is true, that they had to purchase trademarks owned by the previous company (Yosemite Camp and Curry?) then why not make Aramark do the same?

I feel like the govt. dropped the ball and should just buy the damn names and be done with it.

The issue is not that the NPS does not require or agree to the fact that Aramark has to purchase the trademarks but the fact that they feel that the price that DNC wants for them is over inflated. That is what they are arguing about - the price.

The price should have been set before the contract was signed.

There needs to be a new law that any buildings, locations, properties, etc. located on federal land cannot be trademarked by a private company. The American people own the national parks and we should own the names of those places too.

I agree. I think that after Xanterra tried to do this in Grand Canyon a few years ago, a law would have been passed then to prevent this. Unfortunately, without the NPS's knowledge DNC had already obtained trademarks on other names that had not been trademarked by previous concessionaires before the Grand Canyon incident so I don't know how that would have affected this issue.

Xanterra actually did it last year, after Delaware North sprung out "Oh - we own these trademarks and expect to be paid if we don't get the contract". NPS was paying attention. Even so - there have been cases where the USPTO allowed a registration that was later rescinded because there was an implied ownership.

The history is that in 1988, YP&CC *under MCA/Universal ownership) registered a couple of trademarks on "The Ahwahnee" and "Bracebridge Dinner". Then when Matushita bought out MCA/Universal, there was an outcry about a premier concession at a national park belonging to a Japanese company. They forced a sale to the National Park Foundation, but where the buildings were then donated by the foundation to NPS. When Delaware North won the contract, they were required to buy the tangible assets including furniture. I would have thought they had no more rights to historic names of the buildings since they didn't own them.

If you read what the DOJ and NPS are up to, it certainly sounds as if they're trying to invalidate the trademarks or at least assert that any from before DNC's participation should have been transferred to NPS.

Yes, Xanterra did it and then backed down. http://skift.com/2015/05/07/xanterra-backs-down-on-effort-to-trademark-grand-canyon-landmarks/

I remember the whole MCA thing. I have to think that the intent of a contract requiring the next concessionaire to "buy" the trade mark from the current concessionaire is to allow them the ability to use those names for merchandising, advertisement, etc while they have the concession and doesn't mean that they own them forever. This way the old concessionaire can't financially benefit from a contract that they no longer have.

Quote
parklover
Yes, Xanterra did it and then backed down. http://skift.com/2015/05/07/xanterra-backs-down-on-effort-to-trademark-grand-canyon-landmarks/

I remember the whole MCA thing. I have to think that the intent of a contract requiring the next concessionaire to "buy" the trade mark from the current concessionaire is to allow them the ability to use those names for merchandising, advertisement, etc while they have the concession and doesn't mean that they own them forever. This way the old concessionaire can't financially benefit from a contract that they no longer have.

One of the ironies of Xanterra backing off is that one of their attempted trademarks was for Yavapai Lodge, which is now operated by Delaware North.

Some names are so strong that there's an implied trademark. I know of one business where the owner got out of the business and leased the property and the rights to use the name to an operator/lessee. When the lessee became successful, they tried to expand using a similar name and attempts to trademark the name. While it was registered, eventually the owner got upset and objected, and the USPTO rescinded the trademark registration. I'm also thinking that the owner (who never registered the trademark) might have been due some damages for using the name. What the lessee did was change the name of the business, which wasn't specifically required by the lease but where the owner claimed they were promised the name would stay in place.

So what I'm thinking is that as a matter of policy, USPTO has rescinded trademark registrations based on bad faith applications where they never really had a right to apply or where the actual owner wasn't informed and/or didn't have a chance to object or even file its own registration as the proper owner.

The Space Shuttle Atlantis registration was mentioned. However, it apparently only applies to a specific logo designed for NASA and Delaware North. They also have an agreement where the trademark must be transferred gratis to a new concessionaire.

How about this: If the National Park is going to lose this one then on the buildings concerned the new signs could say in very small letters, for example, "Big Trees Hotel, formerly the (and then in huge letters) WAWONA HOTEL. The lettering would be such that unless you walked up to the sign the only thing you can see would be the super large letters: "WAWONA HOTEL". DNC gets its way because the land mark has been re-named as requested, but for the rest of us it still says "WAWONA HOTEL" as you approach it. The sign is correct, it formerly was the Wawona Hotel. Can't argue with that, the statement is true. And on every napkin, plate, souvenir etc. would be the same thing in tiny letters "Big Trees Hotel, formerly" and then in letters that will grab your attention first: "The Wawona Hotel". Works for the Ahwahnee, Curry Village, the Lodge, etc. Crazy idea, huh?