So my take on this article is that no one around here, including Cory, knows a damned thing about U.S. trademark law. Which is a bit sad, but completely predictable.
The people who run the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office donât know a damned thing about U.S. trademark law.
7 Likes
Yeah, thanks for your contribution, (thanks for nothing that is) pointing out a few errors and asking questions that your posts smugly suggests that you donât think anyone can answer as well as you makes you a complete jerk, unless youâd care to contribute.
Jackass remarks, smug assholery and such that you demonstrate are totally tolerable with contribution, but so far you suck ass.
10 Likes
Absolutely, if you can accept that Disney charges less per night to stay in a far nicer, albeit with manufactured heritage, facility.
The Ahwahnee is amazing but theyâve crapped it up over the years, carved it into tiny, uncomfortable rooms, ruined the flow and floor plan, etc. I love it â but the desire to wrest as much cash from it as they can has not served the facility well.
Disney on the other hand perfects such uses.
4 Likes
Commenter wades in with two brief replies, one of snark, the other with acronyms, gets no replies within ten minutes, comes to the conclusion thatâŚ
Sad? Predictable? Ohhh, you must be a lawyer, you know lawyerly things! Did you have an opinion, other than derision, about this issue? Are you all, âHells Yeah! Letâs sell those National Parks for lots of cash because short-term profit is awesome and fuck all that land!â
No, no, itâs much more fun to jump to condescending conclusions about people and their knowledge.
4 Likes
Read my post again. Specifically the bit that says
something along the lines
Asshat
Edit: Oh look. A bunch of other people have formed the same opinion of you completely unrelated to anything I wrote, completely independently of what they wrote. What does that tell you?
4 Likes
Pity. Iâve never been able to afford lodging in the hotel but the lobby and dining facilities are gorgeous. And the bar makes a pretty fine Manhattan. A stay there was definitely on my bucket list.
2 Likes
Main dining room is amazing. Bracebridge Dinner is a thing to experience. Bar and coffee shop are awful.
2 Likes
Dear US Department of the Interior,
Fire your lawyers. Seriously, youâre paying the legal department a wage and theyâre obviously fucking useless.
9 Likes
2edgy4me
Seriously thought, feel free to malign the thousands of highly-educated individuals who have dedicated their professional lives to learning the intricacies of patent and trademark law. Surely you, of all people, are in a position to tell them how their fields should actually be run.
Iâd love to live in a world where that was an accurate description of the people who staff the USPTO, but the mere existence of ridiculous patents and trademarks negates that claim.
Though in fairness I suspect a lot of these claims just get rubber-stamped because the office lacks the resources to do the job they were created to do.
11 Likes
The idea behind a trademark is to protect consumers from being defrauded by crooks who pass off their own inferior product as that of a competitor with an established brand name. E.g., the only company who gets to sell soda in curvy bottles with âCoca-Colaâ on them is the Coca-Cola company; their trademark on the term âCoca-Colaâ prevents you or me from brewing something similar and selling it as âCoca-Colaâ.
For this to work, the trademarked term must be special enough to be distinguishable as a trademarked word rather than a standard descriptive term. For example, Microsoft tried to trademark âWindowsâ but that wasnât granted on the grounds that âWindowsâ is a generic word. This is also why pharmaceuticals usually have made-up fantasy names.
A hotel in Yosemite National Park that is called âYosemite Lodgeâ shouldnât qualify for trademark protection given that the name is obviously descriptive of the location. If the âYosemite Hotelâ were to be found in, say, downtown Manhattan, things might be different. The overarching consideration is that customers who have become accustomed to a certain level of service and ambience in the âYosemite Hotelâ in NYC should be protected from sub-standard âYosemite Hotelsâ that third parties open in Brooklyn, Chicago, or Philadelphia in order to cash in on the original âYosemite Hotelâ's stellar reputation.
4 Likes
I hate to come in defense of mysterr, but he does have a point. Iâve only researched 2 of the trademarks (Iâm an IP attorney) and both were granted in a kosher manner. No tricks, no BS, no rubber stamp. DNC was even forced to disclaim the phrase âYOSEMITE LODGE.â
Wait, what? Yes. There are several issues here: (1) neither Outside nor Cory described the issue accurately (DNC trademarked a drawing with the phrase YOSEMITE LODGE, not just the phrase by itself), and (2) the govt is not being aggressive in asserting its rights. For example, the govt could have not used the design (a flower) with YOSEMITE LODGE and just continue . Or it could have put in the concessionary contract a clause that states that âany goodwill generated as to phrases, marks or names related to the park during the term of the agreement vests to the benefit of the govt.â
This way DNC could not have filed any trademarks (and if they did they would be transferred to the govt).
4 Likes
Looking through the wikipedia page for Deleware North, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_North#National_Park_Service_litigation, the page claims DNC was required to buy trademarks from the previous park vendor, and that their successor would be similarly required to do so.
Maybe this is more complicated than simply bad trademarks?
1 Like
A hotel in Yosemite National Park that is called âYosemite Lodgeâ shouldnât qualify for trademark protection given that the name is obviously descriptive of the location.
Not necessarily. Sometimes you can obtain trademark rights if enough people come to recognize that descriptive name to represent a particular source. Think New York Hotel: we wouldnât want multiple hotels calling themselves âNew York Hotelâ in Manhattan as that would cause confusion. So whichever New York Hotel becomes recognized as the New York Hotel will receive the trademarks.
That being said, thatâs not the case here. The DNC registration is for a flower icon in combination with the YOSEMITE LODGE phrase. During prosecution DNC disclaimed YOSEMITE LODGE, which means people can continue to use the name YOSEMITE LODGE. However they canât use the phrase in combination with the flower icon or similar variations.
is the fact that the trademark is BS and should never have been granted considered valid grounds? honest question.
1 Like
So you think this is a good example of how the patent and trademark field should be run?
4 Likes
No. You have to provide a rationale as to why it should have never been granted. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1064 for the grounds for cancellation.
1 Like
yes, sorry, i meant in hypothetical terms, not related to the details of the case.
So from your reply though, the real answer is âyesâ though, right? If you have some strong position that the trademark is invalid and shouldnât have been granted, thatâs grounds to revoke the trademark.
1 Like
Yeah but what if there are two hotels in Yosemite that want to call themselves âYosemite Lodgeâ? by the idea behind trademark protection you put forth, the 2nd hotel shouldnât be able to do that because people might accidentally go to the wrong one and that hotel would benefit from misleading the consumer. So you would need trademark protection even though the name is obvious, right?
1 Like
