To the Editor—
I’m writing to clarify the issues Rep. Ed Butler raised in his November 11 letter-to-the-editor.
First, as former resident of New Hampshire, including ten years living with my family in North Conway, I have an abiding appreciation for Mount Washington, and the people of the White Mountain region. I spent my “work-life” portion of those years with the Appalachian Mountain Club, Cranmore Mountain, and later, as Commissioner of the Department of Resources and Economic Development. I know how important the tourism and hospitality industry is to New Hampshire.
CNL Lifestyle Properties has made major capital investments in the historic Mount Washington resort since purchasing it in 2006. The object of those investments was to enhance the resort’s reputation as an iconic, resort hotel of national and international prominence. Our intention is to protect the Mount Washington resort brand to ensure this incomparable New Hampshire asset continues to be a unique destination, drawing visitors from around the world to northern New Hampshire. The resort is a vibrant part of the local economy and serves as employer of hundreds of local citizens. A strong brand is important to maintaining that vitality. We want the unique Mount Washington resort hotel identity, which has already been promoted for more than a century to endure, no matter who owns the resort, for the next 100 years and beyond.
The Mount Washington resort has filed a trademark application with the federal government to protect the use of that term in certain very specific ways related to the resort’s core lodging business. The Mount Washington resort at Bretton Woods has been using “Mount Washington” as one of its brand names for more than a century, and under well-established legal precedents, that means the resort already owns that trademark for its resort services. However, CNL has no intention of preventing local businesses from using the term “Mount Washington” as part of their name, so long as it’s done in a way that prevents a likelihood of confusion about the relationship between that business and the Mount Washington resort.
Under federal law, however, if the resort fails to take appropriate steps to safeguard its trademark, even locally, then it could become more difficult to protect the Mount
Washington trademark from businesses using a similar name elsewhere. That includes businesses using a similar name in other parts of New Hampshire, other parts of New England, and potentially other parts of the country. “Trading on” the Mount Washington name would not only harm our resort, but also the local community
For example, the resort’s historic Donald Ross golf course is called the Mount Washington Course. If someone built another golf course in the area and called it The Mount Washington Golf Course, I don’t think anyone would be surprised that we would object to that name. That’s essentially what this trademark issue is about.
For the vast majority of local businesses, there is no conflict. In fact, there are just three businesses using the term “Mount Washington” at issue because they use “Mount Washington” in connection with providing lodging facilities, which is the core of the Mount Washington resort’s business. Three lodging properties---not scores of businesses as Rep. Butler alleges. It is our desire and intent to resolve those differences as amicably as possible. The name of the Mount Washington Valley Chamber of Commerce and numerous other local businesses and organizations that use “Mount Washington” are not at issue and pose no conflict.
As someone who has hiked, skied, and traveled among the mountains of New Hampshire for many years, I feel a personal attachment to the Mount Washington resort and its backdrop, the Presidential Range—as do many residents and visitors alike. Our trademark protection efforts reflect a desire to ensure the resort remains a strong, vibrant property for many, many decades to come.
Stephen K. Rice
Senior Vice President/Managing Director
CNL Lifestyle Co.