California Man Gets Sued After Trying To Trademark Bully A Theme Park
from the oops dept
We've seen a great many examples of trademark lawsuits here at Techdirt. In most cases, those lawsuits are levied by individuals and companies that are the trademark bully, but that's not always the case. We also see plenty of suits that are raised in defense of such bullying, in which the entity suing asks the court to simply affirm that its use is not infringing. Trademark bullies, of course, don't like when that sort of thing happens.
Meet Scott D'Avanzo of California. Scott did a pretty cool thing and created a haunted house attraction in his garage, naming it the "Mystic Motel." Then he came across the plans of the Silver Dollar City theme park near Branson for its new "Mystic River Falls" water rafting ride. At that point, he did the very un-cool thing of contacting Mystic River over the trademark he had on his haunted house and demanding to speak about the name of the new ride.
Scott D'Avanzo said he sent Silver Dollar City a letter earlier this year asking the theme park to contact him about the name, which he claims is similar to the "Mystic Motel" name he used for a haunted house attraction he started out of his garage.
"You have to police your trademarks," D'Avanzo said. "That's all we were doing is protecting what was ours."
D'Avanzo said he has sent many letters to other businesses that are similar to the one he sent Silver Dollar City. He said his letters are usually followed by a phone call where the two parties can work out some parameters for use of the name.
Silver Dollar City, however, didn't bend the knee to D'Avanzo. Instead, the theme park filed a lawsuit, seeking to have the court declare that the name of its ride at a large-ish theme park doesn't somehow violate the trademark rights for a garage-based haunted house. The reported arguments Silver Dollar City makes are the ones you would expect; namely, that its use of the word "Mystic" isn't going to cause confusion among the public for a "family project and neighborhood attraction." That's all the theme park wants: the reasonable use of the name of its ride.
But Silver Dollar City doesn't stop there. The theme park also points out that D'Avanzo didn't oppose its trademark application, didn't say a word about it until it came time for a money-grab, and, oh, D'Avanzo destroyed his Mystic Motel setup entirely some time ago.
Upon information and belief, both the “Mystic Motel” “dark house” and the Christmas-themed “Journey to Polar Point” family projects were destroyed or deconstructed at some time. Upon information and belief, the “Mystic Motel” and “Journey to Polar Point” marks were not in continuous use with those projects during certain years. Upon information and belief, the “Mystic Motel” and “Journey to Polar Point” marks were not used at all or in interstate commerce with those projects during certain years. Upon information and belief, the “MYSTIC MOTEL” mark does not appear to be in use at this time. Upon information and belief, Mr. D’Avanzo and his family are not currently living in the Ladera Ranch house and they appear to have no ability to offer the “dark house” attraction under the “MYSTIC MOTEL” mark for Halloween this year.
In fact, the filing goes so far as to claim that D'Avanzo's trademark application itself may have been built on lies, where he claims to be using the "Mystic Motel" mark in interstate commerce, but never did. On top of that, D'Avanzo created a separate company, Adrenaline Attractions, to which he assigned the trademark. Adrenaline Attractions doesn't provide amusement attractions, but instead consults with parks to design rides, which isn't the market designation for which D'Avanzo has his trademark. Also, Adrenaline Attractions appears to have exactly one customer. Again, this is not a story about confusion in commerce, but about a money-grab.
This, somehow, rates with D'Avanzo as bullying.
"That's what they are is a big bully," D'Avanzo said of Silver Dollar City. "I'm not a stranger to the court," D'Avanzo said. "And if I have to fight, I will."
Any reasonable assessment of the situation would result in Silver Dollar City's request for declaratory judgement to be granted. I'd only like to add that it takes chops to bully a company over a trademark, have that company ask the court to defend it from the bullying, and then call the company the trademark bully.
Maybe D'Avanzo can add an IP wing to his haunted house, except he doesn't appear to actually have one any longer.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: amusement parks, haunted house, mystic, mystic motel, mystic river, scott d'avanzo, theme parks, trademark bully, trademarks
Companies: adrenaline attractions, silver dollar city
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yeah and one of the monsters can be a 91 year old mouse that just. wont. die.
<whisper> the horror... the horror...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's overrun by Zombies®!
Claaaaaims!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just wait till next week Hollywood sue both of them for trademark infringement because of Mystic Pizza.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No, Scott, you don't have to fight. You can settle instead. But will you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wait - did he have a Monster?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I Don't See The Problem
If someone is silly enough to name their business "Bully A Theme Park", I say he should be allowed to trademark it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The lawsuit doesn't even ask for money beyond legal fees and costs, which are likely still low. He could stop digging.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I Don't See The Problem
I don't think he's trying to trademark "Bully A Theme Park". To me it read as man gets sued trying to bully a theme park over a trademark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
According to Supreme Court precedent, any commerce at all, and even no commerce at all, affects interstate commerce.
In Wickard v. Filburn the court ruled that a guy who grew produce solely to feed his own family and never sold it or engaged in commerce with it at all nevertheless affected interstate commerce because growing his own vegetables meant he didn't have to buy them from someone else as he would otherwise have to do, therefore he had a negative effect on interstate commerce.
The government can't have it both ways. If a person's mere existence affects interstate commerce when it's convenient for the government, they can't then (legitimately) turn around and say this guy's trademark is invalid because he didn't use it in interstate commerce. If he used his haunted house at all, he used it in interstate commerce.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I Don't See The Problem
Woosh...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In Wickard v. Filburn the court ruled that a guy who grew produce solely to feed his own family and never sold it or engaged in commerce with it at all nevertheless affected interstate commerce because growing his own vegetables meant he didn't have to buy them from someone else as he would otherwise have to do, therefore he had a negative effect on interstate commerce.
Warn a guy next time, I came this close to facepalming hard enough to give myself a concussion after reading that.
Talk about having decided the verdict from the start and then working back from there...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I was thinking more expansively, wondering whether he has made demands of every remotely relevant business in Mystic, Connecticut or referring to the rather short Mystic River in some way (including another film of that name). Mystic Seaport is so doomed. The Victorian Era at large would also be in a fair bit of trouble.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You would hope so, but something tells me they have done exactly that, many many times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The mystic motel was not “destroyed some time ago” it was open 2018 and enjoyed by thousands. They did a Christmas version of the ride too which was on fox 11 news. Stop spreading fake news!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Mystic River: theme park ride.
Mystic Hotel: some stuff in a guy's garage.
Are you talking about the right one? It seems unlikely thousands of people toured this guy's garage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]