Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: Eco Watch

Re: “Hijacking Yosemite

This comment was deleted because it violates our website's Terms Of Use. People who repeatedly violate our policies will lose their right to post comments. You can read our entire Terms Of Use here.

2 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by Editor on 12/27/2014 at 12:24 AM

Re: “Hijacking Yosemite

This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.

12 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Editor on 12/26/2014 at 7:06 PM

Re: “Hijacking Yosemite

They only want the money as they are being told they have to pay Xanterra that much for the contract at the Grand Canyon. Would love to see what would happen if they tried it there.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Shannon Baas on 12/26/2014 at 6:04 PM

Re: “Hijacking Yosemite

the only trademark DNC owns is the half done logo of the old Curry Co, which I believe the MCA corporation sold them for $2 million, after they won the contract. probably where they learned this trick.

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Kirk Shearer on 12/25/2014 at 10:44 AM

Re: “Hijacking Yosemite

A demonstration of Greed at its' finest.

20 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Ann Horvath on 12/25/2014 at 10:18 AM

Re: “Hijacking Yosemite

I think Karl -- and Delaware North -- is fundamentally wrong. A company hired to manage an already-existing business with an already-existing name is a mere servant that does not develop its own trademark rights in the name of that business. Much like those who distribute and sell a product have no right to lay claim to the trademark rights in the name of the product. Moreover, federal trademark registrations only establish a presumption of ownership in what's registered -- they are not dispositive on the question. The Park Service will prevail and our federal government will keep the rights to use those historic names.

46 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Dan Ballard on 12/25/2014 at 7:03 AM

Re: “Hijacking Yosemite

How can a business trademark a name that has been in existence for many decades before that business operated that concession, doesn't own the buildings and does not have the right to operate that concession in the future?
Those establishments had been operated long long before 1989 without incident

26 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Karl Baba on 12/25/2014 at 12:02 AM

Re: “Hijacking Yosemite

In the case of the federally-registered trademark "The Ahwahnee" for example - the National Park Service is about 25 years too late to object to the matter. The original trademark status was granted in March, 1989 by the U.S. federal Patent & Trademark Office. They are probably similarly too late on other names trademarked, such as Badger Pass, Curry Village, the Wawona Hotel, and Yosemite Lodge. The names being trademarked in the category of "hotel & restaurant services" prevented other similar hotels and restaurants from using and "diluting" or "confusing" the public meaning of those names - a perfectly logical act by the operators of those properties that has likely brought increased business to the operations and therefore increases in the concession fees paid over the many years to the National Park Service. Had those names not been trademarked, we might be seeing many restaurants or hotels being similarly named. The trademarks have been successfully renewed over many years, so the National Park Service stands on very shaky ground in disputing the ownership of these trademarks. Hopefully they won't spend millions of taxpayer dollars on a futile quest to dispute the trademarks. If they had a gripe, in the case of the trademarked name "The Ahwahnee," they could have disputed the claim when the trademark filing was published for opposition in December, 1988. The "legal theory" requested by one person posting a comment here is U.S. Trademark law. Robert Gammon states, "And if the company, Delaware North, is successful, the nation may forever lose the rights to such place names as the Ahwahnee Hotel, Badger Pass, Curry Village, the Wawona Hotel, and Yosemite Lodge." As emotional as his pen might be, the nation cannot "lose" what it does not have, and by this nation's own trademark laws, the nation does not hold the rights to use those trademarked names.

18 likes, 39 dislikes
Posted by William H. Thompson on 12/24/2014 at 11:47 PM

Re: “Hijacking Yosemite

Maybe there can be a follow-up article **trying** to explain the legal theory these guys are using to claim ownership of names of iconic sites in Yosemite.

34 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Tony Daysog on 12/24/2014 at 11:46 AM

Re: “Oakland's New Sewer Fees Penalize Water Conservation

We do! Our average is "62gl for two people and 3furballs"

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Mairead Walsh on 11/03/2014 at 9:53 PM

Re: “When the Water Runs Out

I just finished reading Marc Reisner's Cadillac Desert; this sobering but highly entertaining piece of history should be required reading for everyone in California. The question is not "will we run out of water?" but ""when will we run out of water, and what can we do to postpone that day?"

Posted by David Lubertozzi on 09/11/2014 at 7:32 PM

Re: “When the Water Runs Out

You can't cover the aqueduct. The system isn't what it use to be when built. It's sinking in spots. Why because the aquifers are being depleated and the ground sinks with no water. It might work if water never reaches the top. In that case where ever there is a low spot the cover wil be ripped apart. We don't have kind of money anyway.

Posted by Phillip Moya on 09/11/2014 at 5:03 PM

Re: “When the Water Runs Out

I was driving to San Fran over the weekend with my fiance and noticed the California Aqueduct and came up with a totally legitimate plan to save millions of gallons of fresh California water each year.

I'm trying to get people to pay attention to this, but I'm having A LOT of trouble. Although I have gotten some water experts (the closest I could find anyway) to go over the solution and find no holes in the plan, noone is really taking this seriously.

I honestly believe this could be a sustainable way to save billions of gallons of our water over time. BILLIONS!

Please at least read the petition...

https://www.change.org/p/california-governor-jerry-brown-save-billions-of-gallons-of-california-s-water-by-covering-our-aqueduct

Thank you in advance!!!!!!

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Jj Bisnar on 09/10/2014 at 9:46 AM

Re: “A Rush to Judgment on Fracking

Good article. As with most things, there needs to be a balance. Those that complain also want a low price at the gas pump.

The article complained of toxic chemicals, then said the chemicals were unknown. As a previous process engineer (pharmaceuticals), I am sure they can devise formulations that are not toxic.

As far as 1000 foot fracking, that seems a mistake, if there is also local ground water.

Posted by Gary Baker on 09/08/2014 at 8:24 AM

Re: “A Rush to Judgment on Fracking

There is a lot of evidence of ground water contamination. Hydraulic fracturing is a great sin against nature. How does Governor Brown come to the conclusion that it it ok to risk contamination on any amount of fresh water in this drought ridden state. This will be the century to get it over with the unscrupulous profit driven corporations. The mindless destruction of our earth for short lived gains has to come to and end, once and for all! This is unbearable for anyone who has an unimpaired consciousness.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Gabriele Lorf-Allen on 09/06/2014 at 12:03 AM

Re: “A Rush to Judgment on Fracking

Thanks for this report. No surprises there about the BLM's coziness with the oil and gas industry, just like logging companies and the US Forest Service.

Given potential serious impacts to the California aquifer from fracking, what protections for groundwater is the state contemplating? Are any of the deep wells that are sunk for vineyards (which are themselves sucking up state water) likely to be at risk for contamination (one of the few industries that might have enough pushback to get involved)?

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Laura Baker on 09/05/2014 at 4:23 PM

Re: “A Rush to Judgment on Fracking

This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.

Posted by Editor on 09/04/2014 at 2:37 PM

Re: “A Rush to Judgment on Fracking

The earth has its ways to rid of parasites like humans if we all don't kill all of our selfs first

Posted by Joey Tonnesen on 09/04/2014 at 12:23 AM

Re: “A Rush to Judgment on Fracking

It's like we "humans" are a form of cancer to the earth and fracking is like chemotherapy

Posted by Joey Tonnesen on 09/04/2014 at 12:18 AM

Re: “A Rush to Judgment on Fracking

Just stop. Pennsylvania released info this week about over 200 contamination incidents related to fracking. Stop pretending that fracking is OK. It isn't. This is just embarrassing.

Posted by Deborah Lagutaris on 09/03/2014 at 11:43 PM

Most Popular Stories


© 2016 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation