Uncle Sam blunders again

2571 · Post by **2571** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:12 pm

Feds failed to legally protect Yosemite Park's name; corporation now owns the name and suing US for $M's.

Park service remiss; another gov't agency gave it away to a business.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... src=nl_mix

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:43 pm

2571 wrote:Feds failed to legally protect Yosemite Park's name; corporation now owns the name and suing US for $M's.

Park service remiss; another gov't agency gave it away to a business.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... src=nl_mix

What that company is doing is despicable.

2571 · Post by **2571** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:52 pm

Griff wrote:
2571 wrote:Feds failed to legally protect Yosemite Park's name; corporation now owns the name and suing US for $M's.

Park service remiss; another gov't agency gave it away to a business.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... src=nl_mix
What that company is doing is despicable.

Why did gov't approve their trademark? Seems pretty foreseeable this was gonna happen.

Post by **Chuck 100 yd** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:42 pm

It seems to me that that suit will be thrown out in court. It depends on the date each were first used.
There is,no boubt lots of old evidence that the park was using the name before that company filed for a trademark.
Maybe I should trademark the name "gun" then nobody could produce any guns without paying me a royalty, yes/no?
What kind of lawyer would even take the case?

jeepnik · Post by **jeepnik** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:20 pm

Chuck 100 yd wrote:It seems to me that that suit will be thrown out in court. It depends on the date each were first used.
There is,no boubt lots of old evidence that the park was using the name before that company filed for a trademark.
Maybe I should trademark the name "gun" then nobody could produce any guns without paying me a royalty, yes/no?
What kind of lawyer would even take the case?

Typical low life greedy kind.

hondo1892 · Post by **hondo1892** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:49 pm

Probably a Democrat.

Hawkeye2 · Post by **Hawkeye2** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:28 pm

Feds failed to legally protect Yosemite Park's name; corporation now owns the name and suing US for $M's."

What can you expect from a country that gave away the Panama Canal?

2571 · Post by **2571** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:47 pm

"What kind of lawyer would even take the case?"

How can they lose? Government itself granted / issued the trademark. What else would the corporation have to prove?

2571 · Post by **2571** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:52 pm

Hawkeye2 wrote:Feds failed to legally protect Yosemite Park's name; corporation now owns the name and suing US for $M's."

What can you expect from a country that gave away the Panama Canal?

I'll tell you what to expect - give back Guantanamo to that old fanny burp Raul Castro.

Pisgah · Post by **Pisgah** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:52 am

The company exists to make money; their contract gave them rights to intangibles. What did the Park Service expect?

This is not a case of a rapacious company. It's a case of clueless bureaucrats asleep at the wheel. It wasn't a theft, but a giveaway. If you're gonna be mad, be mad at them.

1894cfan · Post by **1894cfan** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:51 am

It was probably a company owned by George Soros! He owns most of the firearms industry, which is why stuff is so expensive and hard to come by these days.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:18 pm

Pisgah wrote:The company exists to make money; their contract gave them rights to intangibles. What did the Park Service expect?

This is not a case of a rapacious company. It's a case of clueless bureaucrats asleep at the wheel. It wasn't a theft, but a giveaway. If you're gonna be mad, be mad at them.

On one side, there’s the U.S government, which claims that Delaware North surreptitiously accumulated those iconic trademarks during the two decades it managed Yosemite’s concessions and is now demanding that the park pay to get them all back. On the other side, Delaware North says that it is only asking that the new concessionaire pay full value for the intellectual property it’s getting along with the park’s horse stables and hotels, just as Delaware North once had to do.

Names that have been in common usage for decades before Delaware North came into the contracts cannot be trademarked.

Yes, they were given by either clueless, (as you say), or corrupt bureaucrats, I believe any honest Judge will find that "Common Usage" terms are not available for trademarks. Unlike "Coke" or "Pepsi" which were name by their founders, any such use in advertising by someone else demands a royalty paid to their owner.

Intellectual property my butt! Delaware North's claim to the name "Yosemite National Park" is a complete farce. Actually, IMO, it flies in the face of such a term, intellectual property. The fact that they, themselves had to pay for such when they acquired said concessions is immaterial. And just as corrupt... if not legally, then certainly morally. The names of those places belong to "US", the citizens of of this country. If a State park, then to the citizens of that state.

But, I ain't a lawyer... I don't like to swim that deep...

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:40 pm

IIRC, the name "Yosemite National Park" still applies to the park itself, but the concessions have a corporate name that includes Yosemite, and that's what is being argued???

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:37 pm

Griff wrote:
2571 wrote:Feds failed to legally protect Yosemite Park's name; corporation now owns the name and suing US for $M's.

Park service remiss; another gov't agency gave it away to a business.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... src=nl_mix
What that company is doing is despicable.

Perzactly. SHAME on the company - they deserve a total blacklisting from everyone who has any interest at all in this nation's various landmarks and historic sites.

Come on, folks, we already know that the Government is failing miserably in almost every area that they administer or touch, but we might have some power to put the unpatriotic and greedy company out of business.

I will be sending this link back to them, with extreme prejudice.

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:44 pm

Sent a post directly to the company at their website. I could not give them an exact link to this topic because their website security engine or firewall blocked the message with the url inside of it. So I sent them this:
Their website - http://www.delawarenorth.com/

At the "Contact" link, I sent my name, address, and so on with this message:

* * * *
Yosemite National Park - Your stance on ownership of the name of Yosemite National Park will likely result in a serious blacklisting of your company's products.

There is a website discussion at www levergunscommunity dot com with the topic: Re: Uncle Sam blunders again.

I am "JohndeFresno" and live near the National Park in question.
* * * *

I hope that they read this thread. I will indeed talk about this to family, friends, and associates. Even my Liberal acquaintances will likely be upset about this.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:52 pm

BlaineG wrote:IIRC, the name "Yosemite National Park" still applies to the park itself, but the concessions have a corporate name that includes Yosemite, and that's what is being argued???

Actually, it's things like "Half Dome" and other landmarks so they alone can market tourist items with those names on them. IOW, some other t-shirt company can't sell t-shirts with the picture and name of the landmark on them. Frankly, I think any such royalties should go to the Park, off-setting the cost to run the place.

JohndeFresno wrote:...Even my Liberal acquaintances will likely be upset about this.

They might actually become the most incensed over the issue.

Hawkeye2 · Post by **Hawkeye2** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:17 pm

"Vote for Pedro"

Are you refering to Pedro the burro from "Boy's Life" magazine? If so, he has my vote

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:23 pm

Griff wrote:
BlaineG wrote:IIRC, the name "Yosemite National Park" still applies to the park itself, but the concessions have a corporate name that includes Yosemite, and that's what is being argued???
Actually, it's things like "Half Dome" and other landmarks so they alone can market tourist items with those names on them. IOW, some other t-shirt company can't sell t-shirts with the picture and name of the landmark on them. Frankly, I think any such royalties should go to the Park, off-setting the cost to run the place.
JohndeFresno wrote:...Even my Liberal acquaintances will likely be upset about this.
They might actually become the most incensed over the issue.

I know, right? They always burn incense when upset...

sureshot · Post by **sureshot** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:27 pm

I know who will be the most incensed.....

"Say yer prayers, varmint!!!!!"

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:11 pm

BlaineG wrote:
Griff wrote:
BlaineG wrote:IIRC, the name "Yosemite National Park" still applies to the park itself, but the concessions have a corporate name that includes Yosemite, and that's what is being argued???
Actually, it's things like "Half Dome" and other landmarks so they alone can market tourist items with those names on them. IOW, some other t-shirt company can't sell t-shirts with the picture and name of the landmark on them. Frankly, I think any such royalties should go to the Park, off-setting the cost to run the place.
JohndeFresno wrote:...Even my Liberal acquaintances will likely be upset about this.
They might actually become the most incensed over the issue.
Not exactly...

I know, right? They always burn incense when upset...

Adj. 1. incensed - angered at something unjust or wrongincensed - angered at something unjust or wrong; "an indignant denial"; "incensed at the judges' unfairness"; "a look of outraged disbelief"; "umbrageous at the loss of their territory"
≡indignant, outraged, umbrageous

↔angry - feeling or showing anger; "angry at the weather"; "angry customers"; "an angry silence"; "sending angry letters to the papers"

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:13 pm

Hawkeye2 wrote:"Vote for Pedro"
Are you refering to Pedro the burro from "Boy's Life" magazine? If so, he has my vote

THIS guy's buddy Pedro.

You NEED to see flick, "Napoleon Dynamite" !

We need someone in office with skills.

Lefty Dude · Post by **Lefty Dude** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:29 pm

IIRC; Delaware North is a front for the Buffalo NY Mob. A Mafia out fit.

Y'all be careful here, this is a very powerful Group. My bet is the Feds loose and the Mob wins.

They were founded in 1915 in Buffalo, NY. What's that tell you ? One of the largest privately held Corporations in the US.

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:51 pm

Lefty Dude wrote:IIRC; Delaware North is a front for the Buffalo NY Mob. A Mafia out fit.

Y'all be careful here...

If so, not any more corrupt, powerful or dangerous than "certain" political families. At least the Mafia wants to keep this nation from being taken over by foreign governments. I'll stop there to keep this in the "General Discussion" subforum.

7.62 Precision · Post by **7.62 Precision** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:26 am

You have to understand that this is normal, to protect IP rights. The company, which is running the concessions, has to protect their merchandise. If they do not, another company would register trademarks and they bring a lawsuit against them and they would be unable to sell t-shirts and mugs and fridge magnets, etc. So the problem is not that they registered these trademarks, it is to be expected.

The problem is that they are using this first to prevent anyone else from getting the contract, and secondly, to punish the park service after they lost the contract, and to trying to make a pretty huge profit on it.

The government should have registered the trademarks themselves and then granted license to whatever company currently had the contract.

Any time you are dealing with trademarks, copyrights, or patents or other IP issues, you need to make sure with everyone involved who will own the rights. There are a lot of traps that you can fall into, from hiring a designer to build a logo, only to find out years later that he owns the rights to the logo, to publishing a book only to find you gave the rights to the book to the publisher or printer, or even gave the publisher first right of refusal on all future work, to hiring a lawyer to handle trademark or patent registration, only to find that the lawyer ends up owning the rights.

Streetstar · Post by **Streetstar** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:29 am

JohndeFresno wrote:
Lefty Dude wrote:IIRC; Delaware North is a front for the Buffalo NY Mob. A Mafia out fit.

Y'all be careful here...
If so, not any more corrupt, powerful or dangerous than "certain" political families. At least the Mafia wants to keep this nation from being taken over by foreign governments. I'll stop there to keep this in the "General Discussion" subforum.

Italian immigrants are more proud of this country than some of the so -called native sons (or people who dont remember their ancestry or even care )

mohavesam · Post by **mohavesam** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:40 pm

...cannot sue the government for duties only the government can execute.

Very long-standing USSC decision.