It could be months before any decision is reached on whether the Majestic Yosemite Hotel will regain its original name, The Ahwahnee/Kurt Repanshek file
It could easily be mid-2019 before any clarity is shed on the dispute between DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite and the National Park Service over who owns the rights to such iconic Yosemite National Park names as The Ahwahnee, Curry Village, and the Wawona Hotel.
Court documents in the standoff that dates to 2014 show that the two sides have until July 23, 2019, to report back to U.S. District Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith on whether they are optimistic that they can negotiate a settlement.
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 lodging and dining concessions at Yosemite. During the process, DNC, which had held the concessions business in Yosemite since 1993, notified the Park Service that it owned "intellectual property" rights in the form of trademarks attached to lodgings in the park.
If Delaware North was unsuccessful in bidding for the new contract, the company said at the time, 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.
After DNC lost the concessions contract, the Buffalo, New York, company filed a $10 million-plus claim against the government. In that claim, DNC alleged breach of contract by the Park Service for its failure to require Yosemite Hospitality, LLC, an Aramark subsidiary that won the contract, to purchase DNC's intangible properties.
Yosemite National Park officials, looking to avoid a costly trademark fight with DNC Parks & Resorts, announced in January 2016 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. The new names were chosen in order to minimize the impact on visitors, the park announced, 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
DNC Parks & Resorts officials quickly fired back, charging the Park Service with "using the beloved names of places in Yosemite National Park as a bargaining chip in a legal dispute between DNCY and the NPS involving basic contract rights."
Yosemite officials said they had no option but to change the names with the transition in concessionaires to Yosemite Hospitality, LLC.
By July 2019, the judge wants the two sides to either announce a settlement plan, or say whether they intend to file motions arguing why each should win the case.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Excellent summary. We cannot let this go down.
Intellectual property rights and the royalties earned from use of the covered names for memorabilia, etc should go to the Yosemite Conservancy for exclusive use in maintaining and improving the experience of the park. It is contrary to the spirit and mandate of the park system that the names of landmarks associated with a national park should be capitalized on by private individuals for personal gain.
Well said GM!
What did DNC Resorts pay for the right to use the iconic names when they won the contract in 1993? The reasonable compromise would be for Yosemite Hospitality, LLC, an Aramark subsidiary to pay them that amount adjusted for inflation. If they paid nothing (which I believe is the case), they would be owed nothing.
YH, LLC could counter that since the iconic names have not been in use for four years, the value of the names has diminished greatly, perhaps even down to having no value at all.
It's kind of complicated. The company itself was more or less unbroken from the original Yosemite Park & Curry Company until the assets were sold to Delaware North. It was acquired by Music Corporation of America (Universal Studios and MCA Records) before Matsushita (now Panasonic) bought them out and was forced to divest out of fear of ownership by a foreign company. As far as I know there was nothing specifically paid regarding intellectual property during that transfer of assets.
The YP&CC under MCA trademarked a few names (The Ahwahnee, Bracebridge Dinner) in the late 80s before the divestiture. However, there were a bunch around 2002-2003 under DNC, including Curry Village, Yosemite Lodge, and even Yosemite National Park. The question was whether or not they can legally do that on behalf of the property owner. I've heard of one case where a concessionaire registered a TM with the permission of NPS to protect the name against other companies exploiting it, with an explicit agreement that should the concessionaire lose the contract the TM would transfer to NPS.
I've heard of a similar case of a leaseholder that tried to trademark the name of a restaurant when they expanded. A court ruled that the trademark belonged to the landlord, whose family originally operated the business under that name. Then the leaseholder simply decided to change the name of the business and didn't renew once their lease was over. Look up "Taylor's Refresher" in St Helena, California.
I tend to agree with your assessment that they're trying to prove that even without those names that the value of the properties is in the location and services. If they can prove that business is steady, then that greatly diminishes the "value". The other issue is that other concessionaires have tried registering trademarks, but backed off. On the cusp of a new round of competition, Xanterra attempted to trademark several Grand Canyon property names but then withdrew the applications when NPS complained.
Kurt,
Could you link us back to the original NPT report on this. I believe that thread did talk more in depth about the rationale behind DNC's claim. As I recall they did pay something to acquire the assets (trademarks are assets) and of course they invested heavily in promoting them.
Most of the previous stories are linked to the bottom of this story:
https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2016/07/national-park-service-dela...
The links on the linked story don't seem to be working (for me at least)