Universal Orlando Resort Expansion (Part 1)

[darkridelover]

There's already a marina back there that can be expanded by moving the trailers to its north rather than relocating an entire building which is also the kitchen for Circus McGurkus. You also have Poseidon to the marinas west.

 

[Teebin]

Here ya go... a really big show... and it didn’t cost a nickle.

 

[shiekra38]

Here ya go... a really big show... and it didn’t cost a nickle.

This seems like it was original intended to a certain extent with those boat ramps

 

[Teebin]

Has anyone checked whether Universal has trademarked any names for a future park, hotels, entertainment district? I think it is a trademark that they would apply for?

 

[AlexanderMBush]

Has anyone checked whether Universal has trademarked any names for a future park, hotels, entertainment district? I think it is a trademark that they would apply for?

Looking around, and so-far, I can't find a trademark just yet. Been looking for a little bit though, found some Villain-Con trademarks though.

 

[jtsalien]

Aah yes. Well that has to go... They can build another three story building backstage somewhere else and put that on the first floor. The reason: They need to build a huge new marina back there for giant floats, screens, and floating pyrotechnics.

Like someone else said, I believe IOAsis shares facilities with the Circus grill, so I wouldn't think something like this is an easy target for expansion.

That, and if they were crazy enough to take this down before opening the new grill it'd be a total nightmare for TMs. Backlot Bistro is already nuts and lower quality than IOAsis, and you'd just be left with that and the sad little mini grills.

With the workforce growing by 10K plus very soon, I see expansion being more likely for TM dining.

 

[AlexanderMBush]

After checking out, there wasn't anything that caught my eye in trademarks, as opposed to one that actually is rather dead.

 

[Scott W.]

Looking around, and so-far, I can't find a trademark just yet. Been looking for a little bit though, found some Villain-Con trademarks though.

How do you search for trademarks?

The only thing of interest is the recent trademark for CityWalk Orlando.

UNIVERSAL CITYWALK ORLANDO Trademark of UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC. Serial Number: 87708630 :: Trademarkia Trademarks

 

[AlexanderMBush]

How do you search for trademarks?

The only thing of interest is the recent trademark for CityWalk Orlando.

UNIVERSAL CITYWALK ORLANDO Trademark of UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC. Serial Number: 87708630 :: Trademarkia Trademarks

I actually use this, and while not using it often, I sometimes look around for pure curiosity.

Search trademark database | USPTO

 

[quinnmac000]

Looking around, and so-far, I can't find a trademark just yet. Been looking for a little bit though, found some Villain-Con trademarks though.

VIllian Con's been there for awhile like since 2016.

 

[Scott W.]

I actually use this, and while not using it often, I sometimes look around for pure curiosity.

Search trademark database | USPTO

That's the one I started with but I found it a bit of a nightmare and I couldn't figure out how to share the trademark. Done a reverse search and stumbled upon the website I posted and I could just get a list by the owner.

 

[AlexanderMBush]

VIllian Con's been there for awhile like since 2016.

To say this however, because you didn't exactly bring it up, it was 9 months after Minions came out that those trademarks for Villain-Con went up.

 

[quinnmac000]

To say this however, because you didn't exactly bring it up, it was 9 months after Minions came out that those trademarks for Villain-Con went up.

Post from July 15, 2016

Trademarks still live for theme park attractions/lands/waterpark FYSA

SING (filed April 28 of this year)
VILLIAN-CON (Filed April 26 of this year)
BOURNE (Filed April 26)
DARK UNIVERSE (was dead trademark but back back in 2014)
EXOSQUAD (Not filled by Universal City Studios by Universal Animation for theme park use)
MONSTERVILLE (Trademark opposition status update on April 19)
SHERLOCK HOMEBOY (was dead trademark by Universal but brought back last year)
WONDERSEA ISLAND
SILLY SWIRLY (Theme park attracton)
FESTIVAL OF THE DEAD (was the trademark for a parade back at HHN VI but new trademark in 2010 after HHN for theme park attraction namedly Theme park area)

so the trademark has been alive for awhile and I think if there was plans they would've been revealed here already.

 

[Scott W.]

In my trademark messing around, this is what I've found (Probably common knowledge I think but fun none the less). All the hotels are registered as the following:

UCF HOTEL VENTURE IV - Aventura
UCF HOTEL VENTURE III - Sapphire Falls
UCF HOTEL VENTURE II - Cabana Bay
UCF HOTEL VENTURE - Portofino & Royal Pacific

Get TradeMarks by Company Name Search

All the hotels were registered exactly 16 months before opening.

 

[fryoj]

Has anyone checked whether Universal has trademarked any names for a future park, hotels, entertainment district? I think it is a trademark that they would apply for?

I'd think at this point, if they were going to trademark anything like that, it would be done with a shell corporation to disguise it. Even then, theres a statute of limitations where if you don't use it, you lose it. I want to say that is less than a year, so they wouldn't want to do that yet.

 

[Scott W.]

Since I'm still on this trademark train:

HARRY POTTER: WIZARDS UNITE Trademark of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.. Serial Number: 87676655 :: Trademarkia Trademarks

This is listed in the goods and services: amusement parks services; providing amusement park rides.

HOGWARTS Trademark of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.. Serial Number: 87726758 :: Trademarkia Trademarks

Forbidden Journey is also registered with Warner Bros and not Universal.

Edit: It's nothing. Wizards Unite is the game.

 

[fryoj]

May have absolutely nothing to do with Universals South Property, but Lockheed is planning on adding another office building. If nothing else, it does indicate they aren't currently planning on leaving the property.

 

[zg44]

May have absolutely nothing to do with Universals South Property, but Lockheed is planning on adding another office building. If nothing else, it does indicate they aren't currently planning on leaving the property.

Yeah, at this point the only realistic possibility is if Lockheed is considering selling those ~40 acres on the east side of the property that will be cut off by the Kirkman extension and adjacent to the theme parks/hotels.

If they build new buildings on the northern part of their main parcel that could take those functions, that would make sense.

 

[JPRA513]

(Before I start, I know nothing about the Lockheed site, past, present, or future)... I'm coming way out of left field with this, but could the new building permit be a way to possibly up the cost of any land sale. Like "well we were planning on expanding... but we'll sell for this amount..." I literally have no idea, and I'm probably coming off like an idiot, but it seems that many here have hinted at Lockheed leaving this location? Like I said, I have no clue, but this potentially could be a way to get more money out of Comcast. Or it could just be an expansion of a property they intend to keep using (most likely option).

 

[zg44]

(Before I start, I know nothing about the Lockheed site, past, present, or future)... I'm coming way out of left field with this, but could the new building permit be a way to possibly up the cost of any land sale. Like "well we were planning on expanding... but we'll sell for this amount..." I literally have no idea, and I'm probably coming off like an idiot, but it seems that many here have hinted at Lockheed leaving this location? Like I said, I have no clue, but this potentially could be a way to get more money out of Comcast. Or it could just be an expansion of a property they intend to keep using (most likely option).

Naw, Lockheed doesn't need to play land games like that. We're talking about a company worth $100bn with an enormous military contracting business. For them, the land is owned to be used not as an investment.

At most, they may consider selling off the eastern 40 acres if it becomes broken off from the rest of the property by the Kirkman extension and they find themselves not using it much with new buildings on that 20+ acres that they haven't used yet in the north side of their parcel.