If neither Delaware North Cos. nor the National Park Service blinks in their standoff over trademarks to iconic place names in Yosemite National Park, don't be surprised if the dispute drags on into 2017.
This battle is being waged on two fronts: In the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., and in the U.S. Trademark and Patent Office, also in Washington. While the court of claims has yet to establish any calendar for hearing the lawsuit brought by Delaware North's subsidiary, DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, against the Interior Department and Park Service, the Trademark and Patent Office has specified a timeframe for attorneys on both sides to work under as the office considers the government's request that it cancel the trademarks DNC holds to Yosemite National Park, The Ahwahnee, Yosemite Lodge, Wawona Hotel, Camp Curry, and other properties in Yosemite.
In short, the trial schedule set down by the Trademark and Patent Office runs deep into May 2017, although the office does invite the parties to consider arbitration or mediation.
Interior lawyers, in their petition (attached below) last Friday to the Trademark and Patent Office asking that it cancel the Yosemite-related trademarks held by DNC, not only argue that the concessionaire obtained them without notifying the Park Service or seeking its permission, but also that DNC had no plans for the marks after March 1, when a subsidiary to Aramark took over the concessions business in Yosemite.
More so, the lawyers argue that the marks created a "false suggestion" that DNC was connected with a national symbol, in this case Yosemite National Park. That suggested connection, they argue further, dilutes the value of the Park Service properties in Yosemite.
"The marks in the Subject Registrations are recognized as the same as, or close approximations of, names used by the National Park Service," they wrote. "The marks in the Subject Registrations point uniquely and unmistakably to the National Park Service."
"... Yosemite National Park is a famous mark owned by the National Park Service," they add a bit later in their petition, referring to a trademark to the park name DNC obtained in 2003. "Yosemite National Park is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the NPS's goods and services. When the general public encounters the mark in almost any context, it associates the term, at least initially, with the NPS. ...DNC's use of Yosemite National Park in commerce dilutes the NPS's Yosemite National Park."
Noting the ongoing litigation in the Court of Federal Claims, the Interior Department attorneys maintain that by allowing DNC to retain trademarks to those Yosemite properties, "these registrations are causing damage and injury to the National Park Service by having to defend an unmeritorious suit."
The petition also alleges that in its bid for the Yosemite concessions contract that it obtained in October 1993, DNC "recommended a program to explore 'the development of a Yosemite National Park logo, which should then be trademarked.' DNCY represented that it 'would go forward with the program only with full [National Park Foundation] approval.' DNCY, however, never sought approval of the National Park Foundation or the NPS with respect to its trademark program or even advised the NPS of the program directly."
In January, the Park Service decided that, to avoid a legal battle that might interfer with the changeover in concessionaires on March 1, it would change the property names in Yosemite. Thus The Ahwahnee Hotel became the Majestic Yosemite Hotel, Yosemite Lodge at the Falls is being referred to as Yosemite Valley Lodge, Curry Village is now Half Dome Village, Wawona Hotel has become Big Trees Lodge, and Badger Pass Ski Area is being called Yosemite Ski & Snowboard Area.
The cost to change those names, and the signs associated with them, was roughly $1.7 million, the Interior lawyers wrote in their petition.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Delaware North company should be shut down. what a disgrace!!!
Joe, I'm not so sure that Delaware North is all that disgraceful! While I find the whole dispute, particularly over the name of the national park itself, to be frustrating, I think Delaware North is doing what all good businesses should do and that is protect their investments. No-one should be surprised when businesses, particularly big corporations with phalanxes of lawyers, behave this way. That's what they do.
Delaware North has invested an awful lot into its Yosemite business. They promoted the park, they educated people about the values of the park, and their put a lot of money into the facilities, lodges, and resort areas. Bluntly, Delaware North established the Yosemite National Park brand almost to an equal extent that the NPS did. There's a rate of return that the business expects to make on all those costs. And part of it will be the intangibles like goodwill, brand awareness, and the nuances now associated with objects like Ahwahnee, Wawona, and Badger Pass. What those names have come to mean reflects as much, if not more so, what Delaware North has built them to be.
As distasteful as I find the notion, if the NPS wants to protect its own business interests (in this case, the property names, brands, and reputations) then the NPS is going to have to behave like a business itself. It should never have let Delaware North gain such a strong toehold on the public's imagination. It should have had stronger legal agreements over who owned what, and what happens in the dispersal of property at the end of the agreement. The more that NPS works with big business, the more they should expect to have to pay big business attorneys. Having big businesses run necessary infrastructure inside the National Parks (some would call it privatization) rarely, if ever, saves the NPS money. That shouldn't be, and isn't, the reason for concessionaires.
To say that DNC established the Yosemite National Park brand almost to an equal extent that the NPS did is ludicrous. Yosemite National Park has been there for over 100 years before DNC and will be there way past the time that DNC left. DNC has not done anything more than any other concessionaire has done when they held contracts in parks which includes improvements to facilities and lodging. DNC made a lot of money being in Yosemite and they have recovered their costs tenfold. The park doesn't need promotion from a concessionaire since Yosemite has always been considered a Crown Jewel in the park System and demand for lodging, camping and other facilites was there before DNC took over. Frankly, The Yosemite Conservancy doesn more to educate the public about the values of the park. I agree that the NPS should have forseen the possibility of this happening however, the NPS is not set up to be a business so does not think like a huge corporation. I also put a big blame on the USPTO for not knowing that there has been a law in place since the 1940's ( and now in HR 1068 which passed in Dec 2014) pertaining to how names of historic places and areas belong to the government and should have never allowed the trademarking of The Ahwahnee, Curry Village, Badger Pass, etc in the first place. Considering that your site is called the nationalparktraveler, I am surprise, especially in the light of this being the 100th Anniversary of the NPS, that you are not more outraged about this and seemly are more supportive of DNC.