Discussion in 'Miscellaneous Universal' started by Brian G., Nov 5, 2018.
Woah, that was posted with tongue firmly in cheek
Except that wetlands can be "moved" to create developable land. Disney has done it for years now, that's why they just acquired all that new property in Kissimee. That utility easement divides the property, and once again CAN be relocated. It will cost a fortune to do it, but it's possible and would make the land more valuable because it will make the parcels all contiguous.
Ah. I misread the sarcasm.
You dedicate a couple hundred thousand words to writing, re-writing, and re-writing something again, you get defensive.
Lol @ people still discussing a 4th dry park when we don’t even have a third.
Why not discuss Universal London? Or Disney India?
By “between them”, you don’t mean in the middle, right? 7-8 years after park 4 would be a terrible move. I’d wager it’d be open within a year of park 4 opening.
My theory is with Fantastic Worlds taking shape the years of "what if..." now needs to be moved to ANOTHER park instead of just debating if it's worth an expansion in the already built parks.
Fantastic Worlds and a few more hotels need to open first. The data they collect from these will determine the when, and even if they need to change their thinking...
Yeah, the intent was that you should value your work more. Onward
What about a 6th park?
I have no problem to call the new Today Show Cafe a theme park on it's own. I mean the press is calling the Potter lands "theme parks" so we are almost there.
But please no more silly discussions about anything after Fantastic Worlds.
I mean, if you want to go the Themeparx right now, they have a lovely thread on that..
To bring the thread back to focus, I'm somewhat curious about the lands that they could get from Thomas that are still remaining.
If anything, it could be a good place for offices and backstage aspects, further allowing the park's to flourish.
So an interesting little tidbit was recently brought to our attention. It seems that Warner Brothers might be trying to prevent Universal from registering the "Fantastic Worlds" mark.
After a trademark is filed and its application is reviewed and approved by the USPTO, there's a 30 day period where the mark is published in the Official Gazette to notify the public of the intent to register the mark. During this period, any party can file for opposition for any number of reasons, but typically, the most common reason is if they believe the mark is too close to one of their own and may cause confusion.
The Fantastic Worlds mark was published on November 6th 2018, and less than a month later on December 4th, Warner Brothers filed a 30 day Request for Extension of Time to Oppose:
This request was granted, so Warner Brothers then had until January 5th, 2019 to get their case together to file their opposition. However, it seems that the additional 30 days still wasn't enough time, because on January 3rd they filed yet another Request for Extension of Time to Oppose - this time for 60 days and this time with the added language of "for Good Cause" specifically citing the need for "additional time to confer with counsel":
It should be noted that this case is being handled through the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), which is a a "kinder, gentler form of litigation. There are no court hearings in TTAB actions, as nearly all matters are handled in writing. The Board does not have authority to impose any monetary sanctions." So Warner Brothers isn't suing Universal or anything serious like that. They now have until March 6th to file their Notice of Opposition which will outline their case for why they believe "Fantastic Worlds" might infringe on their existing marks.
I think it's pretty obvious which mark(s) Warner Brothers thinks the name is too similar to, based on the initial knee-jerk reactions when the Fantastic Worlds mark was first filed.
What's most interesting to me, however, is the fact that any of this is necessary at all. You'd think that if Uni and WB were in discussions about the inclusion of Fantastic Beasts attractions in their new third park that the name of that third park might have come up. I guess it's possible Universal is really that secretive even when working with their largest IP partner, but it just seems like somewhat of an obvious discussion to have considering how similar the name is.
Anyway, we'll be sure to keep an eye on the TTAB side of things for any updates - but I figured this might spark some new, exciting discussion in the meantime!
Just change it to Epic Worlds and be done with it.
Thanks for the write up! I agree that it seems to be a minor set back, if one at all.
It is not uncommon for partner companies to have a disagreement, taking it to arbitration having a 3rd party to keep it fair.
I've said it before Epic Worlds sounds much more inline with Universal than Fantastic Worlds.
I like both, but prefer Epic.
I'm becoming a fan of "Laversine."
(Say "Universal" backwards.)
My assumption is that this is the land in question: I marked the two major plots that Universal wants with a 1 and 2:
Parcel #1 is more important given how close it is in the resort proper. It could either become a water park along with the parcel just to the east, or it could become another resort.
Universal would use parcel #2 as part of a 3000-4000 room hotel complex with the parcels above/below it similar to Endless Summer Resort.
Those 2 parcels are the main ones that Universal wants. [Ignore the ownership labeling, things are more complex than they appear to be.]
Shot in the dark..I think they'd aim for getting 2 as the immediate, and if possible; to get 1.
2 allows them a large space on the western side that could actually be used perhaps, as a proper transportation area eventually down in the line; and it would also ensure that they could have an easier time connecting the ESS complex with Site B.
Separate names with a comma.