Selkie wrote:Thanks for this info.
The link on Yosemite shenanigans was very useful. I can see a concessionaire having exclusive usufruct of names while holding the contract, but to go and trademark them, then require successor concessionaires to pay the intellectual property rights, strikes me as astoundingly wrong. I also suspect it boosts income to the NPS, which apparently is all that counts.
My be astoundingly wrong in your opinion, but it appears to be
legal--at least so far...if I read this article right:
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Co ... 74931.html
However, it's like everything these days. It takes teams of lawyers and months/years of court time to settle anything.
We'll see. This might get settled in my lifetime
I'm guess I'm confused.
How does it "boost income" to the NPS, specifically to Yosemite?
Yosemite will have to
pay $51 million to Delaware North if it loses the contract but prevails in its trademark application(s).
pete