Yosemite Concessionaire has offered National Park Service free use of Yosemite trademark names during legal dispute

DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. is shocked and disappointed the National Park Service would use beloved names as a bargaining chip and announce unnecessary name changes

Jan 14, 2016, 19:56 ET from DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite Inc.

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, Calif., Jan. 14, 2016  /PRNewswire/ -- DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite Inc. (DNCY) is shocked and disappointed that the National Park Service would announce unnecessary changes to the beloved names of places in Yosemite National Park, trying to use them as a bargaining chip in a legal dispute involving basic contract rights.

This is especially so because the NPS is fully aware that DNCY has offered to license these trademarks, free of any charge, to allow NPS or the new concessionaire at Yosemite to use the trademarks and avoid any name changes or impact on the park visitor experience while this dispute is being settled by the courts. NPS today announced it intends to change the names.

DNCY would also like to set the record straight on a number of statements included in the federal government's January 4, 2016 response to our complaint against the NPS filed in September 2015:

  • The NPS in 1993 required DNCY, as the new concessionaire at Yosemite, to purchase the assets of the previous concessionaire, including its intellectual property, at a cost of $115 million in today's dollars along with the assumption of $40 million in liabilities.
  • That included several valuable trademarked names such as The Ahwahnee. In turn, the DNCY contract requires the NPS to have the new concessionaire buy all of DNCY's property, including its intellectual property. The NPS recently reaffirmed this in a December 29, 2015 letter from the U.S. Department of the Interior (retracting NPS's earlier position that intellectual property was not included).
  • DNCY has not "grossly overvalued" the trademarks. DNCY had two independent appraisals of the intellectual property – which includes trademarked names, websites and customer databases – performed by reputable third-party experts. The valuation results of those separate appraisals are very similar. Again, it should be noted the intellectual property represented a portion of the property purchased by DNCY for $115 million in today's dollars. 
  • Months prior to the bid submission deadline, DNCY shared its appraisals with NPS. After NPS disputed DNCY's appraisals and failed to share its own appraisal, DNCY offered to enter binding arbitration to set a fair value for the intellectual property.  DNCY also repeatedly offered to allow NPS to meet independently with DNCY's appraisers so NPS would understand the appraisal methodologies. NPS refused. Only after being ignored and then rebuffed, DNCY filed a protest with the federal Government Accountability Office requesting that NPS work with DNCY to reach a fair value to include in the bidding prospectus.
  • It is common practice for concessionaires to use trademarks at federal locations. This is done to safeguard the treasured names, words and symbols from improper use by entities not under contract with the government. The NPS is well aware of this, having required DNCY to purchase trademarks from the previous concessionaire in 1993.  NPS also knew that DNCY registered additional trademarks because the government accepted DNCY's trademark registration applications.

A couple of other relevant points around this topic:

  • The National Park Service has repeatedly flip-flopped on the issue of intellectual property. During the RFP process, it at first completely ignored the issue. Then in December 2014 NPS notified all potential bidders that the new concessionaire would be required to purchase the intangible assets of the existing concessionaire, DNCY.  Then, after more than eight months and after selecting Aramark for the award, in August 2015 NPS sent a letter to DNCY stating that it had decided that it wouldn't require the winning bidder to purchase the intangible assets. Four months later on December 29, 2015 (and after DNCY commenced litigation over the issue), NPS retracted its August, 2015 letter and reaffirmed that the winning bidder must purchase intangible assets such as trademarks, customer database, and domain names from DNCY.
  • DNCY hopes NPS and the new concessionaire will not change the names of historic places or venues at Yosemite National Park. We purchased these trademarks when we commenced our work in 1993, as required by our contract with NPS, and our only interest is selling them on to the new concessionaire for fair value, a requirement NPS is obligated to enforce. That is why we have offered to license these trademarks, free of any charge, to NPS to avoid any name changes or impact on the park visitor experience while the disagreement between DNCY and NPS heads toward resolution in the courts.

In summary, all we want in this is fair and just treatment from the National Park Service and for it to follow the letter of our contract. We fulfilled our obligations in 1993, we have been proud and exemplary stewards of Yosemite National Park for the last 22 years, and we have demonstrated our genuine desire to resolve this matter for the last 18 months.


SOURCE DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite Inc.