Jury Decides ‘Valencia’ Is a Trademark : Courts: Easton Investments II is ordered to pay Newhall Land & Farming Co. $2.3 million for using the copyrighted name on local developments.
Turns out you can copyright the name of a Spanish city after all--at least for now.
In 1972, Newhall Land & Farming Co., developer of the posh Santa Clarita Valley community of Valencia, got a federally registered trademark for the exclusive use of the name Valencia--as it relates to American real estate, that is.
So, imagine the outrage when a rival used the name on three nearby apartment and condominium projects. Lawsuit city!
Wednesday, a federal court jury sided with Newhall Land, ordering Easton Investments II to pay the firm more than $2.3 million--yes, million--for using the name.
“We’re absolutely delighted,” Newhall Land spokeswoman Marlee Lauffer said in a telephone interview. “We have spent 28 years bringing a special meaning to the name Valencia. These projects are so close to each other that someone driving by the others would think, ‘Ah, that’s Valencia,’ when they’re not.
“This will end the confusion.”
But that’s not quite curtains on this tale of at least two cities, if you include the original Valencia in Spain.
“There’s a Valencia in Venezuela, a Valencia on an island in Ireland, a La Valencia Hotel in La Jolla and a Rancho Valencia resort near Rancho Santa Fe,” said Paul Hittelman, Easton’s attorney. “There’s even a Valencia Street in downtown Los Angeles.”
(Actually, Los Angeles County is home to more than 17 Valencia ways, drives and avenues, according to the Thomas Guide.)
Given the ubiquity of the name, Easton Investments plans to ask U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall next month to overturn the jury’s verdict.
“It’s not the kind of thing you should be granted a trademark for,” Hittelman said. “The name is all over the place.”
But in the Santa Clarita Valley, the name has come to be associated exclusively with the upscale, master-planned community of thousands of housing units near Magic Mountain, according to Newhall Land’s lawsuit. The company began building the community in 1965 on the 58-square-mile Newhall Ranch, which stretches into Ventura County and is about twice the size of Manhattan.
Since then, Newhall Land has spent millions of dollars to advertise the community’s amenities, including a 12-mile network of internal landscaped trails that lead to the area’s only regional mall. It also contended in its suit that Easton Investments “palmed off” its real estate projects as those of Newhall Land.
Fresh from its legal triumph Wednesday, the firm will ask the judge next month to order Easton Investments to remove the name Valencia from its three projects--Valencia Village, Valencia Vista and Valencia Terrace, Lauffer said.
Some Santa Clarita residents are rooting for Newhall Land because of lingering bitterness against one of the defendants named in the suit, Geoff Palmer, who is also principal in G. H. Palmer Associates of Brentwood.
Last year, that firm was ordered by the state Fair Political Practices Commission to pay $30,000 in fines for illegally laundering campaign contributions in 1987 to a Los Angeles city councilwoman and a group that opposed cityhood for Santa Clarita. The company also fought a divisive battle with Santa Clarita over a 1,452-unit housing project named Santa Catarina. The company eventually lost.
“Palmer does not have a very good reputation in the city, and their Valencia projects caused confusion here,” Santa Clarita City Councilwoman Jill Klajic said.
But Klajic, a vitriolic critic of most developers, also had some choice words for Newhall Land.
“I’d like to see them put that $2.3 million in windfall money back into the community,” Klajic said. “I’m sure there are a lot of community activists in town who would be happy to advise them how to spend it.”
