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

In response to Mr Thompsons legal mumbo jumbo, So does that mean that the town of Ahwahnee can no longer use their name on businesses in their town? I think not, and call BS on your post

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Charles O'Malley on 01/03/2015 at 1:32 PM

Re: “Hijacking Yosemite

William Thompson - Of course there is "Yosemite View Lodge" a stones throw from the park line. People still confuse it with the "Yosemite Lodge-at-the-falls" aka "Yosemite Lodge" in the Yosemite Valley....

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by jeff.hunt.562 on 01/02/2015 at 11:16 AM

Re: “Hijacking Yosemite

Welcome to the wonderful world of "privatization". NPS should operate the concessions, save "We the People" a bundle, and ensure the properties our nation built will remain in the public domain.

9 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Keith Ensminger on 01/01/2015 at 7:06 AM

Re: “Salmon Stuck in Dead-End Waters

While it included many important points, the story overlooked the heroic efforts of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to save more than 600 of these “lost” fish in recent weeks. Although trapping fish in drainage canals and trucking them back to the Sacramento River is not a sustainable long-term solution, DFW should be given kudos for its intensive efforts to save these salmon.

The 100-year old Yolo Bypass canal system was built in a past era, one in which salmon biology was largely unknown and these native fish did not enjoy protection under state and federal laws. State and federal agencies now have a legal obligation to protect these fish, and straightforward and cost-effective improvements are available to prevent this problem in the first place. An updated water system could meet the needs of both people and fish and, ultimately, save the state millions of dollars. These are goals that all Californians should support – and ones that the California Department of Water Resources and Federal Bureau of Reclamation should pursue in due haste to avoid repeating this tragedy again next year.

Jacob Katz
California Trout
Central California Program Manager

6 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by jacob katz on 12/31/2014 at 6:14 PM

Re: “Hijacking Yosemite

Dr. Alfred Runte, author of National Parks, The American Experience (now in a 4th edition), and Yosemite, The Embattled WIlderness, which examined the attempt to balance environmental preservation and human recreation and enjoyment in the park, disagrees with Delaware North's position.

“DNC’s insistence that it owns intellectual property rights to the place names of Yosemite is ludicrous. This is nothing more than a ‘poison pill’ meant to discourage other bidders," said Dr. Runte, who is a contributing writer to the Traveler. "I cannot imagine why the National Park Service is playing along, but then, most in the Park Service don’t know the history, either. It’s in my Yosemite: The Embattled Wilderness, if they would care to read it. Even then, they should not have to read it here.

"The rights of concessionaires do not extend to the place names of our national parks. If the Park Service is allowing that suddenly these place names are private property, the managers responsible should resign. Nor should Delaware North ever be allowed to bid on a park contract again," said the historian.

Park officials have not indicated whether they will challenge DNC's claim beyond giving other companies the option to rename buildings and places in Yosemite if they were to win the next concessions contract, rather than paying DNC $51 million.

However, in a possibly related move, the Park Service at Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky, where a new concessions contract is up for bid, is allowing the next concessionaire to "develop a cohesive, marketable brand" for the concessions operation, but specifically states that "(T)he Service will not consider any name changes as intellectual property of the Concessioner."

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Tim Howe on 12/31/2014 at 9:31 AM

Re: “Hijacking Yosemite

IMHO, Delaware North shouldn't be allowed to bid on any concessions contracts with the NPS, period.

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Tim Howe on 12/31/2014 at 9:30 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.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Editor on 12/28/2014 at 10:46 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.

7 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Editor on 12/28/2014 at 9:12 AM

Re: “Hijacking Yosemite

Be grateful that Delaware North has not yet tried to trademark the actual sites--e.g., Yosemite Falls--as the Pebble Beach Corp. did with the famous "Lone Cypress." The corporation acquired the legal right to the IMAGE of that little tree. Every tourist who stopped for a photo was supposed to pay a fee, and the image could not be used on any sign, painting, stationery--you name it. Local artists immediately collaborated on a large exhibit of images of the cypress. My favorite was the tree constructed of dollar bills.

18 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Barbara Mountrey on 12/27/2014 at 7:06 PM

Re: “Hijacking Yosemite

Ridiculous and insulting. I would think that as historical landmarks that are an integral component of our National Parks, the rights should belong to the people, not some corporate pirate trying to kidnap our National Treasures.

13 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Jon Bock on 12/27/2014 at 12:55 PM

Re: “Hijacking Yosemite

Wake up, it is a dream, cent happen in real life

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Magiselli Moura on 12/27/2014 at 9:59 AM

Re: “Hijacking Yosemite

Satan at his finest. Your President tells us we are the best it's been in regards to racial matters. We have not divided this country but shown the ugly face of Satan. What is money without Jesus. This is another way Satan attacks us to prejudice against each other. Let us pray to God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost, as one voice to unite and become brothers to exile Satan/his followers from America. All Christians unite, stand up for your rights to praise Jesus worth all our might. Iam is listening and watching this I know!

2 likes, 33 dislikes
Posted by Steve Hartsfield on 12/27/2014 at 5:37 AM

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

Most Popular Stories

  • Davis Dysfunction Dooms Raiders Again

    Mark Davis’ head-scratching decision to move the team to Las Vegas has proven to be a major distraction for the team.
  • The Wrong Path?

    Paideia helped turn Oakland Tech into the best public high school in the city. But some teachers and parents are worried about the future of the acclaimed humanities program.
  • Highland Hospital Surveillance Stirs Concerns

    The county's main hospital in Oakland has a camera that reads license plates and shares that information with federal law enforcement, including ICE.
  • Why Oakland Should Cut Off ICE

    Federal immigration officials say they've been investigating "human trafficking" in the city. But in the past decade, they have not imprisoned anyone from Oakland for that crime.
  • Jerry Brown's Cap-and-Trade Program Isn't Working

    California's greenhouse gas emissions declined last year. But it was primarily due to the rainy weather — not the governor's climate policies.

© 2017 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation