This is Outrageous! Yosemite National Park (San Diego, Sonora: how much, hotel, house)

[Mr5150]

Sonora, CA — A grassroots petition calls for the current Yosemite concessioner to end its lawsuit related to property name trademarks.
As reported yesterday (Jan. 14), park officials announced it was renaming several iconic sites to avoid potential trademark infringement issues with the current concessioner, DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc., which is a subsidiary of the Delaware North Companies. That company has filed a lawsuit against the National Park Service after Yosemite contracted a new concessioner to take over on March 1. That prompted a legal battle with Yosemite and DNC, and the company argues it owns the iconic names through trademarks, which the company estimates are worth over $50 million.
A petition, authored by local Columbia College Art Professor Laurie Sylwester, to the United States House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, states, “Delaware North is claiming to own the name “Yosemite National Park”, “The Ahwahnee Hotel”, “Wawona Hotel” and “Curry Village”. Release those names to the citizens of the United States.”


Petition Denouncing Yosemite Name Changes | myMotherLode.com

Greed! What next? Will someone will copywrite the phrase, USA and America???


Sign the petition!


MoveOn Petitions - Delaware North: release the name Yosemite National Park

[BuildingsR'Us]

I will always refer it as Yosemite. IDGAF what some selfish prick wants to rename it. What a joke.

[Tulemutt]

Perhaps they should name it 'Rootin' tootin' Sam's Valley.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

A petition doesn't win a lawsuit.

I love the idea of thumbing our noses at the greedy guy who thinks the tax payers will give him millions of dollars for the names. How insulting that he thinks we're that stupid.

I'd sign a petition telling the government to change the names and save any more tax money on any lawsuit over them. The new names work for me.

[DriveNotCommute]

Interesting. Even Ars Technica has an article about this:
Despite some locale renaming, “Yosemite National Park” trademark dispute persists [arstechnica.com]

One of the replies in the discussion over there seemed to have some good insight on the background behind the headline:

Originally Posted by Viscount Early at Arstechnica article comments

There's a little more to this than meets the eye. I'm not willing to do the legal research to determine who is right, but I think DNCY at least "has a case worthy of being heard by a court" based on the thin amount of the research I have done. I only make this post to make everyone aware of this so you can do more in depth research if the topic interests you.

When this contract was last put up to bid in 1992, DNCY won the bid. The company that had previously held the contract was the Yosemite Park Curry Company, and they had operated concessions/hospitality in the park for over 100 years. YPCC had trademarked several names they used in their park business. When DNCY won the contract, the bid stated that the winner would be required to assume "all assets and liabilities" of the YPCC. This included some liabilities that were "not known", because there were some as of yet un-assessed environmental liabilities YPCC had incurred that the new vendor would have to assume. DNCY was the only company willing to take on the unknown liabilities, and thus it essentially won the bid uncontested. The assets DNCY was required to buy out included all tangible and intangible assets of YPCC--this included trademarks created by YPCC.

Over the years since DNCY took over the park in 1993, they filed various additional trademarks as well. My opinion is some of these aren't valid, some of them probably are. I'm highly skeptical of the "Yosemite National Park" trademark. In any case, the contract was put out to bid again and DNCY lost and Aramark won. When NPS initially listed the bid, they excluded mention that the new vendor would be required to buy all tangible and intangible assets of the current vendor if they won the bid--but the contract DNCY had with NPS from its original bid, required NPS mandate this of any new vendor that takes over. NPS dutifully amended the bid to include this stipulation.

DNCY's allegation is that once Aramark won the bid, NPS refused to require (as per the contract) Aramark purchase the intangible assets at a "fair market value." Essentially DNCY is disputing the valuation of these assets with NPS, and wants a court to come to an equitable determination as to what they are.

By renaming the properties NPS is bolstering its legal argument of a low valuation for these trademarks, as they have no value outside of operations within Yosemite Park and if the names aren't being used, then they have essentially no value at all. But DNCY's claim rests on the required valuation in 1993 of YPCC's trademarks that DNCY was required to accept, DNCY is claiming that despite both contracts having the same wording NPS has treated DNCY disparately and not given them fair market value in line with other fair market valuation of intangible assets in prior NPS overseen vendor buyouts.

Whether DNCY is right or not, I don't believe the correct read on this is "evil company trademarks stuff it shouldn't, then sues." It's more about a dispute about how much assets should be valued in a contractually required buyout. The contract requires "fair market valuation" and the two parties are disputing what that is.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Thanks for the info. There's always more to things. Still seems a little fishy, though, that they would miss this in their initial negotiations, but I'm too lazy to learn the process to see if that's normal. Seems weird, though. Like they made a bargain, then said, "No wait! We thought of something you missed, even though we signed the deal..."

[elvira310]

It sounds like DNCY's butthurt because they lost the contract, and they're holding this over Yosemite's head. While they may have a technical "right," it is making them look like complete a-holes.

Seriously? They are going to expect us to stop calling it Curry Village? Ahwahnee Hotel is now something else? The Wawona Hotel is no longer the Wawona Hotel? Ridiculous.

By renaming the properties NPS is bolstering its legal argument of a low valuation for these trademarks, as they have no value outside of operations within Yosemite Park and if the names aren't being used, then they have essentially no value at all.

This is true. Those names have no value outside of Yosemite. Even if this company "owns" them, they can't force everyone to stop thinking of Curry Village as Curry Village, and the company can't use them elsewhere. Just let it go, already.

[BeauCharles]

The height of corporate pathetic grasping at $$. This is going to get shot down in court. Delaware North might as well give it up.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

Interesting. Even Ars Technica has an article about this:
Despite some locale renaming, “Yosemite National Park” trademark dispute persists [arstechnica.com]

One of the replies in the discussion over there seemed to have some good insight on the background behind the headline:

Um, yeah. But no. Here's more detail to chew on whether the corporate position comes from a legitimate beef:
Delaware North to California: Drop dead | San Diego Reader

Delaware North can take a flying ---- at a rolling donut. Park Service is right to leave them in the hantavirus mouse poop dust.

[DMenscha]

I saw something, somewhere that DNC would give up the rights to the names for nothing. Their contract in 1993 forced them to obtain the naming structure as part of the park concession.

This will be much ado about nothing IMHO.