Re: NPS files to have trademarks canceled

Thanks for sharing, a very interesting document to read. And it seems to make sense. DNC is no longer doing business in Yosemite, therefore it will be abandoning the usage of the trademarks.

Seems like an open and shut case. We shall see...

Yes, but will the Park Service learn the lesson here and start trademark proceedings on all national park place names? Somehow I don't believe they have learned.

Quote
Dave
Yes, but will the Park Service learn the lesson here and start trademark proceedings on all national park place names? Somehow I don't believe they have learned.

They need to just make a law that a private entity cannot trademark something that is owned by the American people.

Quote
hotrod4x5

Quote
Dave
Yes, but will the Park Service learn the lesson here and start trademark proceedings on all national park place names? Somehow I don't believe they have learned.

They need to just make a law that a private entity cannot trademark something that is owned by the American people.

Republicans would never go for it.

Quote
Dave

Quote
hotrod4x5

Quote
Dave
Yes, but will the Park Service learn the lesson here and start trademark proceedings on all national park place names? Somehow I don't believe they have learned.

They need to just make a law that a private entity cannot trademark something that is owned by the American people.

Republicans would never go for it.

Ummm....actually they in general would.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2016 04:41PM by mtn man.

Quote
hotrod4x5

Quote
Dave
Yes, but will the Park Service learn the lesson here and start trademark proceedings on all national park place names? Somehow I don't believe they have learned.

They need to just make a law that a private entity cannot trademark something that is owned by the American people.

I still don't know how the USPTO allowed historic names in parks to be trademarked considered that there was a law since 1946 saying they belonged to the government. The section quoted below is from HR 1068 which passed in December 2014

Sec. 302106. Retention of name
Notwithstanding section 43(c) of the Act of July 5, 1946 (known as the Trademark Act of 1946) (15 U.S.C. 1125(c)), buildings and structures on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register (either individually or as part of a historic district), or designated as an individual landmark or as a contributing building in a historic district by a unit of State or local government, may retain the name historically associated with the building or structure.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2016 01:23PM by parklover.

Quote
parklover

Quote
hotrod4x5

Quote
Dave
Yes, but will the Park Service learn the lesson here and start trademark proceedings on all national park place names? Somehow I don't believe they have learned.

They need to just make a law that a private entity cannot trademark something that is owned by the American people.

I still don't know how the USPTO allowed historic names in parks to be trademarked considered that there was a law since 1946 saying they belonged to the government. The section quoted below is from HR 1068 which passed in December 2014

Sec. 302106. Retention of name
Notwithstanding section 43(c) of the Act of July 5, 1946 (known as the Trademark Act of 1946) (15 U.S.C. 1125(c)), buildings and structures on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register (either individually or as part of a historic district), or designated as an individual landmark or as a contributing building in a historic district by a unit of State or local government, may retain the name historically associated with the building or structure.

I think the trademarks in question were filed in 2003. So if that law was passed in 2014, that would explain it.

Quote
hotrod4x5

Quote
parklover

Quote
hotrod4x5

Quote
Dave
Yes, but will the Park Service learn the lesson here and start trademark proceedings on all national park place names? Somehow I don't believe they have learned.

They need to just make a law that a private entity cannot trademark something that is owned by the American people.

I still don't know how the USPTO allowed historic names in parks to be trademarked considered that there was a law since 1946 saying they belonged to the government. The section quoted below is from HR 1068 which passed in December 2014

Sec. 302106. Retention of name
Notwithstanding section 43(c) of the Act of July 5, 1946 (known as the Trademark Act of 1946) (15 U.S.C. 1125(c)), buildings and structures on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register (either individually or as part of a historic district), or designated as an individual landmark or as a contributing building in a historic district by a unit of State or local government, may retain the name historically associated with the building or structure.

I think the trademarks in question were filed in 2003. So if that law was passed in 2014, that would explain it.

Yes but it was originally covered under the Trademark Act of 1946 so I would think that this was still in effect in 2003. Sec. 302106 is from the HR 1068 which is the new law that replaces former provisions pertaining to the park service. This is a link explaining the bill. http://uscode.house.gov/codification/t54/index.html This is the link to the HR 1068 document if you are interested in reading it. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1068/text

Quote
Dave
Yes, but will the Park Service learn the lesson here and start trademark proceedings on all national park place names? Somehow I don't believe they have learned.

They've learned. This is an incomplete list of registrations that were abandoned after NPS objected. Right now there's likely someone at NPS assigned to check the USPTO website for names of concessionaires and place names in new filings. My understanding is that any new concessionaire contract will contain language stating that any trademarks (registered or not) controlled by the concessionaire must be transferred to NPS. Those terms are supposed to be in the contract that Aramark signed.

https://trademarks.justia.com/864/35/yavapai-86435399.html
https://trademarks.justia.com/864/34/el-86434632.html
https://trademarks.justia.com/864/46/el-86446998.html
https://trademarks.justia.com/864/34/hopi-86434636.html
https://trademarks.justia.com/864/34/bright-angel-86434643.html
https://trademarks.justia.com/864/47/bright-angel-86447027.html
https://trademarks.justia.com/864/44/phantom-86444229.html
https://trademarks.justia.com/864/34/thunderbird-86434642.html
https://trademarks.justia.com/864/34/trailer-86434638.html

Here's an article:

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_28069969/xanterra-drops-efforts-trademark-grand-canyon-names

I mentioned this elsewhere. This one may have been done with NPS permission. The reporting is that NPS took out the registrations in 2011 after outside businesses tried to use variations on the name, but the registration history says that the concessionaire registered the marks and then transferred them to NPS. The concessionaire supposedly pays NPS a nominal $200/year to license the trademark.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local/trademark-trouble-at-national-parks-2ae0266b-c295-12d8-e053-0100007f35a6-367692141.html
https://trademarks.justia.com/786/50/leconte-lodge-78650479.html
https://trademarks.justia.com/786/50/leconte-lodge-78650499.html