Yosemite Concessionaire calls B.S. on park name changes Credit: Bryce Edwards, Flickr News Author: Steven Shaw

Date: 01.15.16 : Steven Shaw: 01.15.16

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CA -- The war of words between Yosemite National Park and long-time concessionaire Delaware North Company (DNC) is escalating. Today, TrailMob.com spoke with a DNC spokesperson who maintains that the company is “shocked and disappointed that the National Park Service would announce unnecessary changes to the beloved names of places in Yosemite National Park” and documents later provided to TrailMob by DNC support the idea that DNC has been unfairly painted into a corner. On March 1st, when new park concessionaire Aramark takes over from DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. (DNCY), certain places synonymous with Yosemite will undergo a “name change.” The Ahwahnee will become the “The Majestic Yosemite Hotel,” the Wawona Hotel will become the “Big Trees Lodge,” Curry Village will become “Half Dome Village,” Yosemite Lodge at the Falls will become “Yosemite Valley Lodge” and Badger Pass Ski Area will henceforth be known as “Yosemite Ski & Snowboard Area.” The January 14th announcement from the National Park Service states that these name changes were necessary to “eliminate potential trademark infringement issues with the current concessioner of Yosemite, DNCY, a subsidiary of DNC.” However, in a letter to the Department of Interior dated January 2, 2015 (and provided to TrailMob by DNC) DNC offered to provide a royalty-free license of Yosemite National Park related intellectual property. “As a gesture of good faith, and to eliminate any perceived need to permit Aramark to discard the famous names in the Park because of the pending court case, DNCY proposes to grant NPS a limited, royalty-free license to use DNCY’s trademarks for The Ahwahnee, Wawona, Curry Village, Badger Pass, Yosemite Lodge…” and others. This gesture by DNCY may deserve some praise, but is also somewhat self-interested. If the park merely changes the names of these icons, the value of its Yosemite intellectual property is significantly diminished.

Letter from DNCY to the NPS offering royalty-free license to disputed intellectual property. (Dated January 2nd, 2016)

The confidential letter goes on saying “[t]his arrangement will enable NPS to preserve more than a century of cultural history in the park and will allow Aramark to continue the great heritage of private concessioners operating under famous, iconic trademarks such as The Ahwahnee, Wawona Hotel and Curry Village.” This excerpt is from a letter from Executive Vice President and COO of DNC dated January 2nd of this year, nearly two weeks prior to the NPS announcement of pending name changes. The letter was sent to National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis, Justice Department Attorney John Roberson and Bruce Fears, the President of Aramark’s Parks and Destinations Division. To fully appreciate the issue at hand, it is helpful to look at how Yosemite National Park concessions have historically been managed. In 1993, DNCY took over management of the park’s concession operations from the Curry Company. As part of that transition, DNCY contends that the National Park Service required DNCY to purchase all of the assets of the Curry Company for a total of $61.5 Million (Approximately $115 Million in today’s dollars). Evidently, this purchase obligation was a condition in the original agreement between the Curry Company and the National Park Service and is somewhat commonplace in the park concession industry. DNCY complied and the sum paid entitled DNCY to the Curry Company’s assets, which at the time included its trademarks and intellectual property-including the valuable “The Ahwahnee” mark, which the Curry Company trademarked in 1988. Fast forward to 2015, when DNCY’s contract with the National Park Service is up for renewal and the story gets interesting. DNCY argues that any future park concessionaire was obligated to purchase its intellectual property under the terms of its agreement with the National Park Service - just as DNCY was obligated to do with respect to the Curry Company many years before. Correspondence between DNCY and the National Park Service (and provided to TrailMob by DNCY) indicates that DNCY and the National Park Service engaged in negotiations over this very matter. Recent events are evidence that a satisfactory resolution was never reached, but the National Park Service appears to have conceded that such an obligation does in fact exist (meaning that Aramark, as incoming concessionaire, would be under the obligation to purchase these assets). DNCY claims that the $51 Million dollar value of its Yosemite intellectual property is supported by two similar but independent appraisals, with trademarks valued at $44 million and additional assets such as its websites and customer database at $7 million. In addition, they allege that neither the National Park Service nor Aramark have provided appraisals to contest the value. DNCY contends that the National Park Service is “trying to use them as a bargaining chip in a legal dispute involving basic contract rights.” In a U.S. Justice Department legal filing the government accuses DNCY of “grossly exaggerated and improper fair value of $51 million for its intellectual property.” Justice Department attorney John H. Robertson writes the company “embarked on a business model whereby it collects trademarks to the names of iconic property owned by the United States...” DNC calls the business model of trademarking federal locations a “common practice for concessionaires… [which] the NPS is well aware of ... 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.” (DNC Press Release). DNCY also flatly denies its intellectual property is "grossly overvalued" and points out a portion of what it paid the Curry Company back in 1993 was for intellectual property and claims it offered to enter binding arbitration with the NPS to set a fair value for the intellectual property. “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.” (DNC spokesperson). DNCY contends that under the terms of its agreement with the National Park Service, they were under an obligation to protect the integrity of Yosemite’s icons from illegitimate use, which they did by way of obtaining the various trademarks (a common method of obtaining intellectual property protection in the United States). The bargain that was struck with the National Park Service, DNCY claims, was that in exchange for this good stewardship, any future concessionaire would be under the obligation to purchase its Yosemite-related intellectual property. NPS letter to DNCY acknowledging new concessionaire is obliged to buy intellectual property. (December 29th, 2015)