The historic "Camp Curry" name was restored today to the entrance sign at Curry Village in Yosemite National Park after a trademark dispute was settled with Delaware North, Inc./NPS
A years-long trademark dispute that caused Yosemite National Park to rename the historic place names of some of its most popular lodging and dining locations has ended, freeing the National Park Service to restore iconic names such as The Ahwahnee and Curry Village to sites in the park.
The Park Service on Monday announced that DNC Parks and Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. (Delaware North), a former concessionaire at the park, will transfer trademarks and service marks at issue in the lawsuit to Yosemite Hospitality, LLC (Aramark), the current concessionaire, as part of a settlement that included the U.S. government.
Under Aramark’s Yosemite concession contract with the National Park Service, those trademarks and service marks will transfer at no cost to the National Park Service upon the expiration or termination of Aramark’s contract. The settlement also involves Delaware North’s transfer of various types of tangible assets (not previously purchased by Aramark) to Aramark and the National Park Service. Finally, the settlement provides for payments to Delaware North from Aramark and the United States to resolve any and all contractual disputes among the three parties arising from Delaware North’s departure as a concessioner at Yosemite, and Aramark’s assumption of its Yosemite concession contract.
On Monday, a temporary banner that had covered the name "Camp Curry" at the entrance to Curry Village was removed.
Names that the park changed in 2016 in response to Delaware North's lawsuit included:
- The Ahwahnee became The Majestic Yosemite Hotel
- Curry Village became Half Dome Village
- Yosemite Lodge at the Falls became Yosemite Valley Lodge
- Wawona Hotel became: Big Trees Lodge
- Badger Pass Ski Area became: Yosemite Ski & Snowboard Area
"The National Park Service looks forward to the restoration of some of the previous names of the properties at Yosemite, including the Ahwahnee hotel, and the resumed use of other trademarks in connection with concessioner activities at Yosemite," the Park Service said in a release. "Any changes to the current names of properties at Yosemite National Park following this settlement will be based upon a schedule to be determined by Aramark and the National Park Service."
It is expected to take up to several months to restore all signs and other materials.
The issue of trademarking words attached to properties in the National Park System arose in 2014, when the Park Service released a prospectus for a 15-year contract involving lodging and dining concessions at Yosemite. During the process, Delaware North, which had held the concessions business in Yosemite since 1993, notified the Park Service that it owned "intellectual property" rights in the form of trademarks attached to lodgings in the park.
If Delaware North was unsuccessful in bidding for the new contract, the company said at the time, it would seek $51 million to relinquish those marks, and other intellectual property, to the new concessionaire. That led the Park Service to say it would allow a concessionaire other than Delaware North to propose name changes to the facilities, which in some cases have been in operation for more than a century under the same name.
After Delaware North lost the concessions contract, the Buffalo, New York, company filed a $10 million-plus claim against the government. In that claim, DNC alleged breach of contract by the Park Service for its failure to require Yosemite Hospitality, LLC, an Aramark subsidiary that won the contract, to purchase Delaware North's intangible properties.
Yosemite National Park officials, looking to avoid a costly trademark fight with Delaware North, announced in January 2016 that they would change the names of iconic lodges in the park.
Delware North officials quickly fired back, charging the Park Service with "using the beloved names of places in Yosemite National Park as a bargaining chip in a legal dispute between DNCY and the NPS involving basic contract rights."
Yosemite officials said they had no option but to change the names with the transition in concessionaire to Yosemite Hospitality, LLC.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
what are the specific terms of the settlement and how much is the united states paying to delaware north?
I heard about $10-11 million with NPS paying out maybe $2.5 million and Aramark paying out the remainder.
edit: I found more specific numbers. NPS pays $3.84 million and Aramark $8.16 million.
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/yosemite-national-park-name-changes/i...
If I were the NPS I would just say "bill me".
Most likely wouldn't be legal. Not that it might not be possible with this administration.
It could have been a worse. By Executive Order, The Ahwahnee could have been renamed Trump Tower at Yosemite Water Park.
So, how much "kickback" did NPS officials get for awarding the contract to Aramark in the first place? Usually, when a company's assets are acquired by another, there is compensation paid for "intellectual property," "good will," and trademarks. Why should this have been an exception?
Because those names existed prior to the contract by DPS. They in essense stole those names from the NPS when they took claim. The courts obviously were not going to agree so the park and new vendor apparently agreed to settle. Just because they settled doesn't mean they agree with the terms, just that they decided this amount of payout was more favorable than continueing to fight the claim in court, and pay the laywers etc.
At least now I can finish my book, YOSEMITE: THE EMBATTLED WILDERNESS, second edition (Rowman & Littlefield, 2020). Meanwhile, just one reminder: This happened under Mr. Obama's Park Service, not Mr. Trump's.
I 'spect the original DN contract was drafted during the W administration--maybe Clinton. That contract should have provided for rights in facility names, but almost certainly didn't. Poor drafting. Hasn't changed.
The whole deal was in the works with the NPF as the caretaker and Delaware North the winner of the bid. They took over in 1993 when Clinton was in charge, but I'm not sure which administration drafted the contract. But in the end I'm sure that it was done by career NPS people without any political influence. Again, we can all second guess it, but this was never seen as a concern. None of the contracts before or until Delaware North revealed its poison pill mentioned trademarks. This manueuver will never happen again.
It has nothing to do with who was or is president. The claim to 'intellectual property' by the prior concessionaire to names that have been long standing was as bogus as the boo hoos they sobbed while carefully preparing their bank accounts for the anticipated cash windfall
Technically the trademark registrations happened in the late 80s under Reagan and then around 2002-3 in the Bush II administration. However, I don't think of this as a political issue. I really don't believe anyone could have anticipated it. This was the first time it became an issue, and moving forward no concessionaire is likely to try, although Xanterra tried and was rebuffed because NPS was paying attention.
y-p-w: You say they "technically" occurred in the late 80s. What do you mean by technically? You then say "around 2002-03." What do you mean by around? When in 1991 Manuel Lujan forced the sale of the Yosemite Park and Curry Company to the National Park Foundation, Congress held major hearings, in which I believe none of this was ever mentioned. The first new concessionaire after MCA (Delaware North) was supposed to buy the concession for the government--that as its obligation for being awarded the contract. End of story; no more debates. Every stitch, nut, and bolt of the concession belongs to the government via Interior and NPS. One would think the names went with the concession, yes? How did yes turn into "technically" no?
Believe me, I'm not asking for myself, but yes, I want the second editon of my book to be accurate. If you have any special knowledge, sources, or insights, I would like to know. "Technically" and "around" are of little help.
I don't have a copy of the terms, but all reporting of the transfer state that there was no checklist of "intangible assets" that transfered from MCA/Matushita to the National Park Foundation, then to Delaware North. However, one well known trademark that YP&CC registered before the forced sale to NPF as the caretaker was "The Ahwahnee", which was USPTO trademark serial number 73739312, registration number 1529066.
https://trademarks.justia.com/737/39/the-73739312.html
It shows a trademark ownership history that mentions YP&CC, Delaware North Parks & Resorts, and Yosemite Concession Services. But somehow this trademark that was registered by YP&CC (under the Reagan administration and granted in the Bush I administration) and ended up transferred to Delaware North.
And I don't agree that everything in the concession belonged to the government. As you stated it was arranged as a forced sale to the National Parks Foundation, which operated it as a caretaker before the contract was awarded to Delaware North. They had "tangible assets" that have been mentioned many times in the telling of the trademark dispute, including vehicles, restaurant requirment, etc. that would be needed to run the business. The government has never owned those assets. You're free to research the registration history. But you can have this as a start:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=1529066&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION...
What I'm saying is that the Reagan/Bush USPTO allowed this to be registered and apparently this was never addressed buy NPS when Secretary Lujan was in office. And that during the Bush II administration, Delaware North started applying for trademark registrations for Yosemite names, including the following (with their registration numbers):
Badger Pass (2720778)
Yosemite Lodge (2715313)
Curry Village (2685968)
Wawona (2739708)
I just find it disingenuous that somehow you pin this on the Obama administration or Interior while he was in charge. The registration and/or transfer of these trademarks was all done quietly over the years under multiple administrations. You can check all these on TESS at the USPTO website.
Inept governemnt lawyers allowed DNC to "steal" the names in the first place...
Stand your ground, y_p_w, and don't give even an inch! I have a lot of first hand experience with Delaware North, Xanterra, and Yellowstone Forever in Yellowstone and with Aramark in a couple of places. Yes, this is problem did slither its way, in the dark and behind closed doors, through multiple administrations and inept government lawyers did provide an unnecessarily easy way forward; however, it has always been a problem of corrupt concessionaires and their cronies and has never been a problem equally attributable to all administrations. I too find it disingenuous, disgustingly so, that someone would now try to pin this on the Obama Administration or on Interior during the Obama Administration. I've also never cared for much of Alfred Runte's work; I find it skewed; I won't be buying or reading his book; and I won't be recommending it, at least not for reading.
Apparently the NPS did not have to pay for the smaller portion of the settlement. It came from a DOJ settlement fund.
Thank you, y_p_w. Now I see where you're coming from. But yes, the final, final in all of this happened under the Obama Administration. Why wasn't his Interior Secretary on the ball? As you state regarding Xanterra at Grand Canyon, why wasn't the National Park Service "paying attention" in Yosemite?
As for you, rumpelstilskin, remember what Mark Twain said about critics. I put my name out there. What is your name, and for that matter y_p_w's? I know; it's a jungle out there. Someone might call you out for an idea. Ot stab you in the back for one. Then have one, at least, besides the old corruption theory. After all, we citizens always play right along. That is the essence of YOSEMITE: THE EMBATTLED WILDERNESS. Your government was the crony, too. That's good history and not opinion. Now, buy a coloring book and enjoy your weekend. Good history is over your head.
Oh, AL, Under Trump's Administration and GOP enablers, expect Yosemite's Assets to be sold off to the wealthy Chinese and Russian Oligarchs ! Perhaps, new developments like
a private golf course resort for Trump's Wealthy Friends will be planned for the Valley once all that "Naturalness" is bulldozed ! and flammable forest debris is vacuumed ! as
Trump recommended visiting the smoldering ashes of Paradise, CA.
You want to know my name? I don't feel comfortable posting it to a live message board. I've been a registered user on NPT for over a decade. Kurt knows my full name and location if you're really that curious. I take it you know how to use discretion.
But I don't really blame anyone in the federal government. Yosemite Park & Curry Company (under MCA) and Delaware North registered the trademarks quietly. It's not like they privately told their competitors about this, especially since it would have likely hurt their future bids for other concessions if they had to pay a transfer fee. The USPTO did everything by the book, which was publish the registrations for opposition and nobody at NPS (or who would have tipped off NPS) seemed to notice. But the bulk of these trademark registrations were filed and granted when Gale Norton was Secretary of the Interior and Fran Mainella was NPS Director. I don't necessarily blame them either. This was something novel that was kept quiet for 16 years.
There were 10 Interior Secretaries and 7 NPS Directors from the time that YP&CC filed its first Yosemite trademark registration to the point where Delaware North said "Ahem, we're owed $60 million if you don't renew our contract". Were they all somehow at fault? Any one of them could have handled it early enough to request a trademark cancellation on the basis that it should never have been granted. But that didn't happen. Delaware North had their one shot to use this as a poison pill and they took it. In the end they lost the contract, eventually got $12 million (minus their attorney fees) and know that pulling this kind of stunt in the future is impossible.
This was one heck of a learning experience, like someone finding that something is pretty hot after being burned. NPS certainly got burned in this case, but now they're periodically checking the USPTO database for names of NPS properties. I mentioned that when Xanterra tried it back in 2014, NPS was paying attention and forced them to drop their applications.
https://www.denverpost.com/2015/01/09/park-operator-xanterra-files-trade...
https://www.denverpost.com/2015/05/07/xanterra-drops-efforts-to-trademar...
Agreed, this isn't the "fault" of any single individual or administration. Perhaps rather than waiting for someone else to file and fight it, the NPS should register themselves any names they deem important up front. But in the end, I don't really care about names - as Shakespeare said, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
During the case with Delaware North, NPS was demanding that the trademarks be cancelled, and absent that be transfered to NPS as the rightful owner.
I actually believe that NPS would have won if they had stuck it out, but the time and cost in terms of federal attorneys probably wasn't worth it. And settling isn't really anything that would embolden similar trademark registrations by concessionaires since it's been shown that NPS will now fight it in front of the USPTO. I believe it's also written into all new NPS concessionaire contracts that they can't do that, and if somehow they have any that they have to revert to NPS without any payment once the contract ends.
There has been at least one case where NPS allowed a concessionaire to register a trademark. There was LeConte Lodge at Great Smoky Mountains NP. I heard the claim was that they were concerned about outside sellers of merchandise with the name of the business, and that they had a requirement to transfer the