Senator calls attempt to cancel trademark ‘big mistake’
Officials weigh in on petition to cancel National Park logo
BY MARK GREGORY Associate editor
The National Park Service’s attempt to cancel the city’s "Hot Springs National Park" trademark is "a big mistake," U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., said Tuesday. "Hot Springs promotes the National Park 50 times better than the Park Service does," Pryor said. "By virtue of it being on one of the logos and going out on visitor information, tourist maps, etc., etc., they’re promoting, they’re telling the world, that there’s a national park there," Pryor said. "I think that the city should be commended for doing the Park Service’s work for them in promoting this National Park," he said. Pryor, U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-District 4, and U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., each contacted the Park Service Tuesday about the trademark dispute. Ro ss sa i d he called Daniel Wenk, Park Service deputy director, first thing Tuesday morning to "express my outrage." "The city of Hot Springs and the Hot Springs National Park have had a positive and productive relationship that has benefited both the city and the park for 176 years," Ross said. "The city of Hot Springs and the Hot Springs Advertising and Promotion Commission have a long standing tradition of promoting the park and their logo is a source of pride that reflects this wellestablished relationship," he said. "I oppose this petition and remain committed to fighting any proposal that would limit the promotion of Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas." Lincoln made an attempt to contact Mary Bomar, Park Service director, about the issue on Tuesday. "I regret that the situation has been elevated to this level,"
Lincoln said. "I, like many Arkansans, have wonderful memories of times spent in Hot Springs. As an Arkansan, I am proud of Hot Springs’ rightful place as a tourist destination that adds critical dollars to the state of Arkansas," she said. "I am proud of the spirit of cooperation that has existed for so many years among all sectors of the community and the National Park. Again, the situation we find ourselves in today is extremely unfortunate and, I believe, unnecessary. I hope a quick resolution can be met by working together," she said. Pryor said he thinks the Park Service has "encouraged the use of that phrase over the years ... and for them now to turn around at the very last minute here to object to this is just a change of policy by the Park Service that I don’t think anybody saw coming." Pryor said he and Wenk discussed the possibility of a memorandum of understanding between the Park Service and the city, where the Hot Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau and the city would agree with the agency on how the logo would be used. Pryor said he offered to be a "bridge builder" in that process. Sheryl L. Rakestraw, intellectual property attorney with the Branch of Acquisitions & Intellectual Property, Division of General Law, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, said the Park Service prefers for a settlement to take place, rather than have it go through the appeals process. "A settlement process can happen now. I mean, it can happen any time. We prefer that to happen quickly," she said Tuesday. The Department of the Interior asked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cancel the ad commission’s trademark because "Hot Springs National Park Arkansas" so resembles "Hot Springs National Park" that it is likely to cause "confusion, mistake or deception." The ad commission was granted trademark registration number 2706344 on April 15, 2003. The trademark was granted for the city’s signature diamond and wave-form logo, which includes the wording "Hot Springs National Park Arkansas." Under U.S. Trademark Law, a petition to cancel a registration of a mark can be filed within five years from the date of the registration by any person who believes that he is, or will be, damaged by registration of the mark. Tuesday was the deadline to file the petition. "Consumers are likely to be confused, mistaken and deceived into believing that the goods and services of Registrant (the commission) are provided, sponsored, licensed or approved by Petitioner (the Department of the Interior) by authority of Federal legislation and regulation ... ," the petition states in part. Rakestraw said the settlement process would involve "sitting down and talking and trying to find a way that we can both live together, that we can both use the name and that, once we’re able to come up with a plan that works," so that it can be removed from the PTO process. "We usually like to settle these things out, and be friends, and help each other and that kind of stuff," she said. Rakestraw said she had handled a couple of other cases where a company had used the Park Service’s name, but declined to say, off the top of her head, whether there had been a similar trademark dispute with a city. "Really, the issue is that because we’re a federal entity we have certain laws and regulations that we alone are under. And so that creates an expectation when someone sees that name. And that’s the only reason why we kind of like for our friends and our neighbors to not completely use just the National Park Service name," she said. "’Home of,’ ‘Gateway of,’ something like that, just to differentiate between the kinds of regulations, federal regulations, that we are under versus – you know, the city doesn’t have those things. I’m not really sure why they’re trying to subject themselves to that kind of scrutiny," Rakestraw said.
