At just about every Branson Board of Aldermen’s meeting since October, 2006, in good weather and bad, short meetings or long meetings, Pam Dapprich has appeared in front of the board asking for an apology for the manner in which her business was treated by the city of Branson because it had the word “Branson” in its title and was not located within the city limits of Branson. There are some who say that she has made her point and should get over it and others who say that she is due an apology.
For what it matters, based on the evidence shown below, and although he certainly does not agree with everything she says at those meetings, an Ole Seagull just has to believe that Dapprich is due an apology for what the city of Branson, under the color of law, did and attempted to do, in its Sep. 15, 2006 letter to her. All that has transpired since, all the smoke and mirrors, Dapprich’s bi weekly presentations, etc. cannot change the stark reality of the contents of that letter and what it represents.
That letter, signed by city attorney Paul Link, starts off by saying, “The City of Branson, Missouri owns the federally registered service mark BRANSON, MISSOURI (and design) Reg. No. 2,594,679 for use with municipal services.” In fact the city of Branson did not then, and does not now, have a federally registered Service Mark “Branson, Missouri” under that, or any other, registration number.
The city of Branson has a Service Mark for a design, registered under that registration number that includes, among other things, the words “Branson, Missouri.” Most will recognize it as the “city logo” appearing on stationary, the city flag etc. The granting of that Service Mark, by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, did not give the city of Branson any federal right to restrict the use of the words “Branson” or “Missouri” except as used in the complete “logo” covered by that Service Mark.
In fact, the online records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, pertaining to the granting of that Service Mark, indicates that the application filed by the city of Branson, in 1999 contains a disclaimer specifically stating that “NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "BRANSON MISSOURI" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN.” (Caps are used here because that’s the way it is in the official records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.)
Even more interesting is the fact that in 2004 and again in 2005, the City of Branson filed two different applications for a Service Mark for Branson Landing. Although each was a different design both had the words “Branson Landing” in them and contained a specific disclaimer stating, “NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "Branson" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN.” (Caps are used because that’s the way it is in the official records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.)
The letter goes on to state, “Recently, we note that you have adopted and are using “Branson” in connection with your business although you are not located within the city limits of the City of Branson, Missouri.” Among other things, the letter goes on to say, “This type of deceptive trade practice constitutes trademark infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C 1114(1); false designation of geographic origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).”
“But Seagull, how can anyone be in violation of the federal laws cited for the use of something that was not registered under those laws?” The simple obvious truth is that they can not. But even more ludicrous is the question, “How can the city of Branson’s current elected mayor and board of aldermen, with a straight face, not apologize to Dapprich for the pathetic lack of professionalism and deceitfulness that the letter appears to represent?” Now wouldn’t that be a great question to ask those running for the office of mayor and aldermen in the upcoming April election?
