Opinion: Corporate grab behind Yosemite trademark clash
By Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times
If you’re a lover of U.S. national parks in general and Yosemite National Park in particular, you’ve probably been moved to outrage over reports that a New York corporation has claimed the trademark rights to several names associated with the park.
These include the historic Ahwahnee Hotel, Curry Village, and conceivably Yosemite National Park itself. As a response to a pending lawsuit over the issue, the National Park Service will erase some of the disputed names as of March 1; the Ahwahnee will become the Majestic Yosemite Hotel and Curry Village will be known as Half Dome Village. The park’s name will stay the same…for now.
The dispute over the names is part of a broader legal fight, though not one that necessarily makes either the company or the government look good.
seems to be leaving out the $ paid/owed, Aramark…
Patent trolls. Another reason to hate lawyers.
What next? Zephyr Cove, Lake Tahoe?
John Muir and Ansel Adams are rolling in their graves. The men who drafted the documents to protect Yosemite had the foresight 150+ years ago to see that there may be a need to have a cap on annual visitors. How could the powers that be not see this coming? The corporate lawyers should be ashamed of themselves!
The intellectual property issue not yet mentioned is that if I commission an artist to create a particular piece for me, he then does not own the rights to what he has created. . . in the case of Delaware North, they did not commission the names originally, and perhaps paid something they thought was “ownership” with their purchase from Matsushita (the $ 115 million in the LA Times article), but as alluded to, the lawyers may have erred in the interpretation of ‘trademarks’ – that would give the NPS the incentive to change the names under these circumstances, as from their angle it is only the logos on coffee mugs & t-shirts that is truly in question . . . what Delaware North thought they got when they “purchased” the rights from Matsushita as their $$ point…
That is not necessarily Yosemite’s NPS issue at all. . . so they may be able to resurrect these names after the dust settles among the corporations (the Yosemite contract is worth a couple of billion $$, so there is also ‘sour grapes’ in losing it after a quarter-century). . .
Short of selling product know to have unsafe defects, rarely have I been as disgusted with a corporation as I am with this one.
For whatever it’s worth, and how this may end up relating to Tahoe-this article says Aramark & Delaware North are rivals. Well that’s an understatement! They’re fierce, bitter rivals.
A couple years ago Aramark’s Tahoe GM got a better offer to go work for Delaware North at their Grand Canyon concession. He had worked for Aramark for a long time. And actually was just hoping Aramark would match the offer.
When Aramark told him to take a hike, he was quite bitter. He made noises that DN was going to go after & get Aramark’s Tahoe concessions. (Zephyr Cove & the Tahoe Queen) Probably just noise.
But the 2 companies are bitter competitors. And DN is obviously less than thrilled at losing such a big prize as Yosemite.
I agree totally with Lisa.
As I understand it, the name change now is to avoid becoming a part of the copyright battle and a possible claim for damages by DN for copyright infringement.
Whether they should have been able to copyright something they did not create or own is the real question. Supreme Court??? I almost hope not as I think they might go with the money and allow it.
Too bad the Park Service never copyrighted the names etc. My guess is they are frantically playing catch-up base ball to avoid similar situations on the myriad other National facilities that are run by corporations who are also watching this play out with intense interest.
The mugs and memorabilia with the new names on them could be real collectors items if somehow the situation can be restored to its original names.