Yosemite to change iconic names January 14, 2016 01:40PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,976 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 14, 2016 02:01PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 690 |
January 14, 2016 02:03PM | Moderator Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 7,421 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 14, 2016 02:11PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 690 |
January 14, 2016 06:45PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,096 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 14, 2016 02:06PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,976 |
January 14, 2016 03:12PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,374 |
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.
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 14, 2016 06:13PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,976 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 14, 2016 02:40PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 759 |
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.
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 14, 2016 05:11PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 690 |
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?
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 14, 2016 05:29PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 759 |
January 14, 2016 07:35PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,096 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 17, 2016 05:28AM | Registered: 8 years ago Posts: 2 |
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?
January 17, 2016 05:22PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
January 17, 2016 06:21PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,096 |
Quote
mrcondron
Doesn't a bill of attainder require some sort of crime be involved?
January 18, 2016 10:13AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,374 |
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.
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 17, 2016 10:34PM | Registered: 8 years ago Posts: 2 |
Quote
mrcondron
Doesn't a bill of attainder require some sort of crime be involved?
January 18, 2016 06:35AM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
January 14, 2016 02:41PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,374 |
January 14, 2016 02:58PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,374 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 14, 2016 03:28PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1 |
January 14, 2016 05:56PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,374 |
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!
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 16, 2016 08:36AM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,461 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 16, 2016 11:34AM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,976 |
January 14, 2016 02:03PM | Moderator Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 14, 2016 09:58PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,976 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 14, 2016 02:36PM | Moderator Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 864 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 14, 2016 06:32PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,976 |
January 14, 2016 07:05PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,351 |
January 14, 2016 08:43PM | Moderator Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
January 15, 2016 06:22AM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,351 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 15, 2016 12:10AM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 261 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 15, 2016 08:01AM | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 220 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 15, 2016 08:44AM | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 220 |
January 14, 2016 02:50PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 321 |
January 14, 2016 02:52PM | Registered: 8 years ago Posts: 53 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 14, 2016 07:35PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,976 |
January 14, 2016 07:52PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,096 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 15, 2016 09:34AM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 931 |
January 15, 2016 10:11AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 4,173 |
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
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 15, 2016 10:21AM | Moderator Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 864 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 15, 2016 02:51PM | Registered: 8 years ago Posts: 1 |
January 15, 2016 03:12PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,096 |
Quote
K2
Federal Government needs to pony up whatever it takes to buy these names or tell these corporations where to go flat out.
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 15, 2016 04:00PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 690 |
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.
January 15, 2016 04:41PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,096 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 15, 2016 06:31PM | Moderator Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 864 |
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.
January 15, 2016 08:24PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 4,173 |
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.
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 15, 2016 04:28PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,736 |
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 15, 2016 09:32PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,976 |
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.
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 15, 2016 10:11PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,736 |
The price should have been set before the contract was signed.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.
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 15, 2016 10:42PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,976 |
Quote
hotrod4x5
The price should have been set before the contract was signed.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.
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.
January 16, 2016 03:01PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,374 |
Quote
parklover
Quote
hotrod4x5
The price should have been set before the contract was signed.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.
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.
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 16, 2016 04:43PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 1,976 |
January 16, 2016 11:44PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,374 |
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.
Re: Yosemite to change iconic names January 18, 2016 09:34AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 670 |