Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Posts
A Yosemite bear

The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (69% of Full)


Advanced

Re: More news on the Yosemite trademark fight - DoI moves to postpone the lawsuit

All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

avatar More news on the Yosemite trademark fight - DoI moves to postpone the lawsuit
March 18, 2016 05:20PM
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article66878672.html

Apparently the Interior Dept has petitioned the court handling the lawsuit to postpone it until such time as the USPTO board resolves their petition to cancel the trademarks. Delaware North says it should be the other way around.

I think Interior has a point. If the trademarks are rescinded or assigned to NPS by the board, then there is no "fair market value" due to Delaware North for property that they don't own.
Re: More news on the Yosemite trademark fight - DoI moves to postpone the lawsuit
March 20, 2016 03:00PM
I agree that getting the trademarks rescinded is a strategic plan. I just hope that this does not drag on for years. One thing I saw this morning on the Aramark website is that the Bracebridge Dinner is again called that and not the Yosemite Yuletime Dinner or what ever it was being called.
avatar Re: More news on the Yosemite trademark fight - DoI moves to postpone the lawsuit
March 20, 2016 04:19PM
Quote
parklover
I agree that getting the trademarks rescinded is a strategic plan. I just hope that this does not drag on for years. One thing I saw this morning on the Aramark website is that the Bracebridge Dinner is again called that and not the Yosemite Yuletime Dinner or what ever it was being called.

Sounds rather odd. That was one of the registrations that YP&CC secured in the 80s. If anything, it's one of the trademarks where there really is a portability of the name. It's also something that was definitely developed and owned by YP&CC. I'm wondering how Aramark's attorneys approached this.

If someone had been paying attention back around 1992-1993, this would have never become and issue. Delaware North wouldn't have blinked an eye if they had been required to turn over any registered/unregistered intellectual property.

Also - the numbers that Delaware North trots out are suspect. They say they paid $61.5 million back in 1993 and in current dollars that's over $100 million. They only got somewhere under $30 million for the physical assets, and they claim they just want what they paid back. However, their purchase of the YP&CC stock included the buildings, which they immediately turned over. How much do you suppose those buildings were worth? Essentially buying those buildings on behalf of NPS was the cost of entering the market. It's disingenuous to claim that somehow that $61.5 million number has any correlation with what they're owed for assets in 2016.

Also - a lot of these companies made out like bandits. MCA was essentially forced to sell YP&CC, but they ended up with an agreement that they receive all the profits until the new concessionaire took over. The National Parks Foundation bought YP&CC for $51 million, so they turned a cool profit in those two years. Delaware North got 23 years of profits from the concession, including a lot of years where they operated on short-term contracts pending public bids.
Re: More news on the Yosemite trademark fight - DoI moves to postpone the lawsuit
March 20, 2016 09:02PM
Quote
y_p_w
Quote
parklover
I agree that getting the trademarks rescinded is a strategic plan. I just hope that this does not drag on for years. One thing I saw this morning on the Aramark website is that the Bracebridge Dinner is again called that and not the Yosemite Yuletime Dinner or what ever it was being called.

Sounds rather odd. That was one of the registrations that YP&CC secured in the 80s. If anything, it's one of the trademarks where there really is a portability of the name. It's also something that was definitely developed and owned by YP&CC. I'm wondering how Aramark's attorneys approached this.

If someone had been paying attention back around 1992-1993, this would have never become and issue. Delaware North wouldn't have blinked an eye if they had been required to turn over any registered/unregistered intellectual property.

Also - the numbers that Delaware North trots out are suspect. They say they paid $61.5 million back in 1993 and in current dollars that's over $100 million. They only got somewhere under $30 million for the physical assets, and they claim they just want what they paid back. However, their purchase of the YP&CC stock included the buildings, which they immediately turned over. How much do you suppose those buildings were worth? Essentially buying those buildings on behalf of NPS was the cost of entering the market. It's disingenuous to claim that somehow that $61.5 million number has any correlation with what they're owed for assets in 2016.

Also - a lot of these companies made out like bandits. MCA was essentially forced to sell YP&CC, but they ended up with an agreement that they receive all the profits until the new concessionaire took over. The National Parks Foundation bought YP&CC for $51 million, so they turned a cool profit in those two years. Delaware North got 23 years of profits from the concession, including a lot of years where they operated on short-term contracts pending public bids.
I am to the point that I need to make a flow chart of all the information that I read so I don't say or post something that is wrong. I thought I read somewhere that the National Park Foundation bought the buildings and gave them to the park. Looks like I need to reread everything. DNC made tons of money from Yosemite and I feel that in the end that they are going to lose more money because people are boycotting them than the amount that they want. I also wonder what is going to happen if they lose the bid for Sequoia in October because as part of their contract they built Wuksachi Lodge. Are they going to demand payment for that too and keep the name?
avatar Re: More news on the Yosemite trademark fight - DoI moves to postpone the lawsuit
March 20, 2016 09:22PM
Quote
parklover
I am to the point that I need to make a flow chart of all the information that I read so I don't say or post something that is wrong. I thought I read somewhere that the National Park Foundation bought the buildings and gave them to the park. Looks like I need to reread everything. DNC made tons of money from Yosemite and I feel that in the end that they are going to lose more money because people are boycotting them than the amount that they want. I also wonder what is going to happen if they lose the bid for Sequoia in October because as part of their contract they built Wuksachi Lodge. Are they going to demand payment for that too and keep the name?

I certainly read that too - that the plan was for the National Parks Foundation to donate the buildings to NPS before the new bidder (taking over in 1993) took over. However, the other information I read is that Delaware North did end up buying the buildings, but that a condition of the contract was that they immediately turn them over to NPS. That makes sense in a way, given that the National Parks Foundation paid $51 million for YP&CC, but Delaware North paid $61.5 million. Even so, there was no point by point breakdown of what the money paid for. Someone with a little more attention would have made the current situation unlikely.

As for Wuksachi Lodge - I thought that NPS paid for it, even though Delaware North developed the plans and hired the contractor. NPS pays for a lot of things now, including capital improvement. They paid for earthquake retrofit of places like the Ahwahnee and Old Faithful Inn. I doubt they have quite the leverage that they have since Yosemite properties obviously carry a lot more value.
Re: More news on the Yosemite trademark fight - DoI moves to postpone the lawsuit
March 20, 2016 10:47PM
Quote
y_p_w
Quote
parklover
I am to the point that I need to make a flow chart of all the information that I read so I don't say or post something that is wrong. I thought I read somewhere that the National Park Foundation bought the buildings and gave them to the park. Looks like I need to reread everything. DNC made tons of money from Yosemite and I feel that in the end that they are going to lose more money because people are boycotting them than the amount that they want. I also wonder what is going to happen if they lose the bid for Sequoia in October because as part of their contract they built Wuksachi Lodge. Are they going to demand payment for that too and keep the name?

I certainly read that too - that the plan was for the National Parks Foundation to donate the buildings to NPS before the new bidder (taking over in 1993) took over. However, the other information I read is that Delaware North did end up buying the buildings, but that a condition of the contract was that they immediately turn them over to NPS. That makes sense in a way, given that the National Parks Foundation paid $51 million for YP&CC, but Delaware North paid $61.5 million. Even so, there was no point by point breakdown of what the money paid for. Someone with a little more attention would have made the current situation unlikely.

As for Wuksachi Lodge - I thought that NPS paid for it, even though Delaware North developed the plans and hired the contractor. NPS pays for a lot of things now, including capital improvement. They paid for earthquake retrofit of places like the Ahwahnee and Old Faithful Inn. I doubt they have quite the leverage that they have since Yosemite properties obviously carry a lot more value.
This is what I found on the SEKI website: "In 1985, the National Park Service began construction of the infrastructure at Wuksachi - roads, parking lots, bridges, walkways, underground utilities, water and wastewater treatment facilities, a fire station, and staff housing. In 1998 a new concessions contract was awarded to Delaware North Parks Services, who committed to constructing the registration, dining, and lodging buildings planned for Wuksachi. The first lodging and dining facilities opened at Wuksachi Village in June 1999." There is also more info at this website http://www.nplas.org/wuksachi.htmlbut That website noted that funding was provided in 1984 but was that for the whole complex or just the infrastructure, etc that the NPS built? I am sure that somewhere on the internet is the answer. I remember the whole controversy about removing the lodging at Giant Forest Village. The first time I went to Sequoia I stayed in a cabin there. I also stayed at Wusachi Lodge many years ago and was a bit disappointed because it was more motel like and not lodge like.
Quote
parklover
The first time I went to Sequoia I stayed in a cabin there.

Me too, I loved those old cabins with the old-fashioned claw foot bathtubs! smiling smiley
I'm still amazed that before the campground got relocated to Lodgepole, there was a campground located right in amongst the giant sequoias!
You'd have thought it would have dawned on them much earlier on that all those people, cars, etc. were not too beneficial for the welfare of the sequoias! eye rolling smiley
Re: More news on the Yosemite trademark fight - DoI moves to postpone the lawsuit
March 21, 2016 12:04PM
Quote
PineCone
Quote
parklover
The first time I went to Sequoia I stayed in a cabin there.

Me too, I loved those old cabins with the old-fashioned claw foot bathtubs! smiling smiley
I'm still amazed that before the campground got relocated to Lodgepole, there was a campground located right in amongst the giant sequoias!
You'd have thought it would have dawned on them much earlier on that all those people, cars, etc. were not too beneficial for the welfare of the sequoias! eye rolling smiley
Once the frogs and birds calmed down for the night, I remember it was so quiet that I could hear my husband's heart beating and I had a hard time falling asleep. I really liked those cabins. As for knowing earlier that everything that was there was not beneficial to the sequoias, things were not studied like they are now in the past and the mission of the park service was in a different mind set so I guess you could say that "ignorance was bliss." Many of the buildings in that area were on the Historic Registry so there was a fight between preservationists and conservationist about the removal of the buildings. I think everyone should read Scorched Earth by Rocky Barker for it is an eye opener on how the firefighting and conservation policies in our national parks were formed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2016 12:06PM by parklover.
avatar Re: More news on the Yosemite trademark fight - DoI moves to postpone the lawsuit
March 21, 2016 12:08PM
Quote
PineCone
Quote
parklover
The first time I went to Sequoia I stayed in a cabin there.

Me too, I loved those old cabins with the old-fashioned claw foot bathtubs! smiling smiley
I'm still amazed that before the campground got relocated to Lodgepole, there was a campground located right in amongst the giant sequoias!
You'd have thought it would have dawned on them much earlier on that all those people, cars, etc. were not too beneficial for the welfare of the sequoias! eye rolling smiley

I have memories of staying at Giant Forest Village, especially the food that my mom placed outside in the cupboard on the porch of our cabin. She said she was afraid that food stored inside might attract bears. Just guess what happened to the cupboard. Strangely enough we didn't pay a fine and weren't even asked to pay for the repairs.

There is a website from someone who wants Giant Forest Village restored to its former state for people.

http://www.giantforestvillage.com
Re: More news on the Yosemite trademark fight - DoI moves to postpone the lawsuit
March 21, 2016 02:29PM
Quote
y_p_w
Quote
PineCone
Quote
parklover
The first time I went to Sequoia I stayed in a cabin there.

Me too, I loved those old cabins with the old-fashioned claw foot bathtubs! smiling smiley
I'm still amazed that before the campground got relocated to Lodgepole, there was a campground located right in amongst the giant sequoias!
You'd have thought it would have dawned on them much earlier on that all those people, cars, etc. were not too beneficial for the welfare of the sequoias! eye rolling smiley

I have memories of staying at Giant Forest Village, especially the food that my mom placed outside in the cupboard on the porch of our cabin. She said she was afraid that food stored inside might attract bears. Just guess what happened to the cupboard. Strangely enough we didn't pay a fine and weren't even asked to pay for the repairs.

There is a website from someone who wants Giant Forest Village restored to its former state for people.

http://www.giantforestvillage.com
Oh my, that was quite an experience for you. Thanks for the website. It would be pretty hard to restore Giant Forest Village to its former state. Many of the buildings were torn down and we are now more aware of the damage that can be done to the sequoias. However, I can see their point of liking the atmosphere of how it was like. I am not a big fan of the Wusachi Lodge because for me it feels too disengaged from nature. I wonder why they didn't have balconies and/or patios off the rooms.

Edit: I just looked at the website and it looks like it has not been active for a while since they mention that you write to President Bush for support and the date for the last update on one page was in 2008 and another in 2013.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2016 02:42PM by parklover.
avatar Re: More news on the Yosemite trademark fight - DoI moves to postpone the lawsuit
March 21, 2016 01:08PM
I've always thought whichever architect drew up the plans for the Wuksachi Lodge in Sequoia was a sadist at heart. First, the registration building and dining hall are nowhere close to the lodging buildings. It's a bit of walk from the parking lot used for the registration building to the building itself. And it's even a longer walk from the lodging buildings to the registration/dining building. It's also quite a bit of a walk — uphill —from the lodging parking lot to the lodge rooms themselves. It can be a pain if hauling bunch of gear or luggage to and from your guest room. And at night when it can get cold, even in the summer due to its elevation, it's an annoyance to have to walk so far from one's room to get something to eat at the dining room or gift shop/store.



Leave No Trace
Re: More news on the Yosemite trademark fight - DoI moves to postpone the lawsuit
March 21, 2016 02:23PM
Quote
plawrence
I've always thought whichever architect drew up the plans for the Wuksachi Lodge in Sequoia was a sadist at heart. First, the registration building and dining hall are nowhere close to the lodging buildings. It's a bit of walk from the parking lot used for the registration building to the building itself. And it's even a longer walk from the lodging buildings to the registration/dining building. It's also quite a bit of a walk — uphill —from the lodging parking lot to the lodge rooms themselves. It can be a pain if hauling bunch of gear or luggage to and from your guest room. And at night when it can get cold, even in the summer due to its elevation, it's an annoyance to have to walk so far from one's room to get something to eat at the dining room or gift shop/store.
I agree. We have only stayed there once and, I can't remember without looking at our travel diary, it was either not long after they opened or in 2000 and our son was small. It was a pain not only dragging our things to the room but all the things that you take along for a small child. Our biggest impression was how large the room was especially since we had just spent a few night in a tiny room at Cedar Lodge that was so small we couldn't even take our luggage in. It is a poor design especially for families with small children or for older people. Try carrying a child at night back to the room after you had dinner in the restaurant. Architecturally, the lodge buildings are disappointing especially since supposedly their goal was to do a lodge like The Ahwahnee or Old Faithful. Only the registration/dinning building comes close to being parkitecture.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2016 02:23PM by parklover.
avatar Re: More news on the Yosemite trademark fight - DoI moves to postpone the lawsuit
March 21, 2016 08:47PM
I've never stayed at Wuksachi Lodge. I did have there lunch once, but I was camping in the area. That trip I spent the first night at a cabin at Grant Grove Village. That thing was your basic rustic cabin like I remembered at Giant Forest. I suppose another problem was that the heat didn't work. However, I had plenty of extra clothes and since I was ready for a camping trip I could have probably layered with my sleeping bag.
Re: More news on the Yosemite trademark fight - DoI moves to postpone the lawsuit
March 21, 2016 09:22PM
Quote
y_p_w
I've never stayed at Wuksachi Lodge. I did have there lunch once, but I was camping in the area. That trip I spent the first night at a cabin at Grant Grove Village. That thing was your basic rustic cabin like I remembered at Giant Forest. I suppose another problem was that the heat didn't work. However, I had plenty of extra clothes and since I was ready for a camping trip I could have probably layered with my sleeping bag.
I remember the clawfoot bathtub that had no shower but one of those hose nozzle combinations that you could attach to the tub faucet and it was a real challenge to wash my hair without water going all over the floor. We didn't mind how rustic the cabin was and loved the experience of staying in the Giant Forest. It was so fun.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login