This is sort of a silly topic that is generating a lot of ink.

First of all, trademarks fall into two general categories:
1. Trademark
2. Registered trademark

Having possession of an actual, original use, commercial trademark is orders of magnitude of greater value than a generic US issued 'registered' trademark.

Case in point: the Washington Redskins. The current administration, for various political purposes, directed the US PTO (US patent & trademark office) to rescind the Redskins US registered trademark. Did this invalidate the Redskins actual trademark? No. Anyone notice people selling unauthorized Redskins merchandise, using the name, etc? No; the reason being is any court would issue an immediate stay.

So let's get back to the issue of DNC. That they were able to get a US registered trademark on many place names, buildings, etc issued by the PTO will amount to nothing when this case comes up against "real" trademark claims (eg original use, etc) held by the NPS. (Most likely, a clerk in the PTO simply issued the registered trademarks because in many ways, it appeared that DNC was acting almost in the park's capacity. Mistake noted.)

However, when DNC's action comes up before a federal court hearing on the issue of trademark ownership, I wouldn't be surprised to see an immediate rejection. I mean, the case is laughable on its face. My guess is the $3m number the NPS is throwing out there is simply the cost of litigation to get each and every trademark officially back in their possession.

So DNC can take the $3m, or they can spend their own $ defending the claim, and get -0- when the entire laundry list is handed back to the NPS.

Last edited by Hobbes; 01/19/16 03:46 PM.