A petition drive is underway to block DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite's trademark claims at Yosemite. Rather than pay for those rights, the National Park Service has opted to rename historic lodges, such as the Wawona Hotel, which would be known as the Big Trees Lodge/David and Kay Scott
Editor's note: This updates with the National Park Service and Department of Justice declining to comment on the trademark matter.
A petition drive launched soon after Yosemite National Park officials said they would change the names of historic lodges rather than entertain DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite Inc.'s request for $51 million in exchange for the trademarks and other intellectual property is gaining momentum.
As of Monday the petition, started by Columbia College (California) Art Professor Laurie Sylwester, was nearing its goal of 4,000 signatures. Once that number is met, the petition is to be delivered to Congress with a request that that body make DNC Parks & Resorts release the trademarks.
These historical names include three indigenous American names, people with ancestors dating back 12,000 years in the region, long before Delaware North was a corporation. Our tax dollars support Yosemite National Park and no corporation may own that great heritage.
However,the petition cites no legal mechanism for Congress to use to achieve that goal. Congress did in December 2014 amend the U.S. Code with language under Section 302106 that specifically gives the National Park Service the right to "retain the name historically associated with the building or structure" regardless of any trademark. However, that provision was not mentioned by the Department of Justice earlier this month when it asked a federal claims court to dismiss Delaware North's claim for more than $10 million in damages.
National Park Service officials on Tuesday referred questions about that provision to the Department of Justice, where spokeswoman Nicole A. Navas declined to comment as the matter was in litigation.
The issue of trademarking words attached to properties in the National Park System arose in 2014 year when the Park Service released a prospectus for a 15-year contract involving concessions at Yosemite. During the process, DNC, which has held the concessions business in Yosemite since 1993, notified the Park Service that it held "intellectual property" rights in the form of trademarks attached to lodgings in the park.
If Delaware North is unsuccessful in bidding for the new contract, the company said it would seek $51 million to relinquish those marks, and other intellectual property, to the new concessionaire. That led the Park Service to say it would allow a concessionaire other than Delaware North to propose name changes to the facilities, which in some cases have been in operation for more than a century under the same name.
DNC did indeed lose the contract.
Last Thursday ay park officials, possibly looking to avoid a costly trademark fight with DNC Parks & Resorts, announced that they would change the names of iconic lodges in the park. The Ahwahnee Hotel, for instance, would be known going forward as the Majestic Yosemite Hotel. Other changes included:
● 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
Additional background on the trademark dispute in Yosemite and elsewhere in the National Park System can be found in these Traveler stories:
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2014/12/what-value-ahwahnee-hotel-c...
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2014/12/historian-says-delaware-nor...
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2015/01/yosemite-trademark-discussi...
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2015/01/us-code-might-allow-nationa...
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2015/01/xanterra-parks-resorts-make...
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2015/01/national-park-service-will-...
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2015/02/new-prospectus-grand-canyon...
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2015/03/xanterra-parks-resorts-aban...
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2015/09/delaware-north-companies-su...
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2015/10/new-yosemite-concessionaire...
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2016/01/government-calls-delaware-n...
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2016/01/dnc-says-national-park-serv...
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Of course not, the law means nothing to these folks.
Agreed, Comrade. DNC cares nothing for the law nor, apparently, for much of anything else involving anything that won't pull more money into their coffers. If they did, people wouldn't be upset about the situation.
Yeah, that's why they were using the legal process to keep what they thought was theirs. And of course they are seeking to pull more money into their coffers. That is the purpose of their existence.
Lee, I am certainly not an expert in any of this, but I do think that, among other legal arguments, the Historic Preservation Act prohibits trademarking sites listed on the National register. But you are right, with that much money on the table, who pays attention to reading the law. The issue will probably have to be litigated, the courts sorting it all out. It is a darn shame in my view. EC has a point, many believe, and some state supreme courts have so stated, that the sole purpose of a corporation is to make a profit for its shareholders/stakeholders. In my opinion, this is a sad state of affairs.
The historic names were there before the concessionaire was there. The names should remain with the park. If they don't, the concessionaire should not be allowed to use them. It's only a way to try to rip off the taxpayer.
I'd note that it is a little bit more complex because of when the trademarks were filed. I did a search and at least two were registered when Yosemite Park & Curry Company actually owned the Ahwahnee Hotel and operated the Bracebridge Dinner. Now whether or not the title of those trademarks were properly transferred to Delaware North is another matter. I wouldn't be surprised if a good lawyer could convince a court that at least their unregistered trademarks didn't transfer title since NPS took possession of the buildings.
The transfer of assets was also complicated. They didn't go directly from MCA to Delaware North. The National Park Foundation made the purchase from MCA, and they donated the buildings and perhaps other assets to NPS. I think someone dropped the ball on making sure that something like this didn't happen.
At least after Delaware North sprung their announcement, NPS was paying attention and stopped Xanterra from moving forward with their attempted registration of Grand Canyon name trademarks.
Unless you are a socialist or a communist, I can't see on what basis anyone could come to any other conclusion.
Unfortunately, there are more than just a few large corporations that have completely abandoned even a pretense of exercising ethical conduct or using honesty as their standard. But then again, I guess that's really nothing new.