The way United parks acts in general, 100% their fault by defaultBut it's not only financial (though even if it were, United is crystal clearly still the aggressor). Sesame lays out multiple other ways United was not only in breach of the contract, but also utilizing their IP in entirely unapproved ways while evading the contract-required coordination with Sesame.
I obviously can't argue against your lawyer friend since she's not here, I don't know what she has or hasn't read, etc, but it seems like an aggressive oversimplification of the case to basically say "well everyone is in the wrong here so."
News Sesame Workshop Sues to Terminate IP License
- Thread starter Python_Survivor
- Start date
She gave a quick read of the briefing not a full dive into everything. I just texted her again (new mom and extremely busy with DOJ) to get her thoughts on your feedback, and she agrees that while UP is the ‘aggressor’ in this case, it reads like Sesame just wants the contract terminated and the waiting to collect all these points rather than filing as issues happened. And that’s why she said it’s like a “no fault divorce” - they waited a while.But it's not only financial (though even if it were, United is crystal clearly still the aggressor). Sesame lays out multiple other ways United was not only in breach of the contract, but also utilizing their IP in entirely unapproved ways while evading the contract-required coordination with Sesame.
I obviously can't argue against your lawyer friend since she's not here, I don't know what she has or hasn't read, etc, but it seems like an aggressive oversimplification of the case to basically say "well everyone is in the wrong here so
She did point out, not that UP will use any of this, but Sesame has done a lot of format changing the last handful of years, going from 60 minute to 30 minute episodes, killing off their magazine, doing longer segments. Another interesting point she said UP could use if they want (again, only read the quick brief), is the movement from PBS to HBO Max to Netflix and making the brand harder to find could have been damaging to them (UP) We might not have discovery yet (she didn’t dive into it too much like I said) where there’s going to be proof or disproval of contact.
well, sesame place parks do exist, both in Pennsylvania & san diego
San Diego will be rebranded as back to aquatica just in case
but pennlsyvania is unknown (eitehr demolished it or rebrand it as seaworld Pennsylvania (making the tiny seaworld park ever, well, seaworld ohio was seaworld tiny park)
I was referring to plans, not the parks, which as you point out clearly do exist
Why would they rebrand it as a SeaWorld park when they have no animal attractions?
Highly unlikely that they will spend the money rebranding San Diego my bet is they cut their losses and close it. The Pennsylvania one is a wild card no idea what it's future might hold.
It’s an interesting location to say the least. It’s not like that would be a good spot for housing because of the commercial lots around it, but also it’s not great for commercial because they don’t need more. I don’t know Sesame Workshops desire to operate their own park (could you imagine that outcome - walk away with just SP and UP loses all branding) or any other FEC to operate it. Maybe a buyer like Fun Spot could take it over (I hate the idea) or Enchanted might want one more property. Maybe Hershend would step in having some success with smaller parks.
Either way - it’s an interesting parcel in a good location.
Sesame Place PA has not
I don't know what kind of financial position IBP&E is in right now (especially with the uncertainty surrounding Niagara's 2026 season), but this honestly seems like a good park for them to pick up (and lose the Seasme branding); it's honestly on the same scale as Clementon.
Perhaps if united is successful in aquiring a new ip , the two sesame place parks could be rebranded with that IP if they are looking for replacement for the sesame Street IP
Screamscape reported a little bit about this lawsuit---apparently United Parks did have the right to replace the Sesame Street branding with Rescue Jr. at Sea World San Antonio, which they say unlocked Sesame Workshop's ability to open a FEC in Dallas, Texas. Sesame is said to be upset about the lost income from the characters being gone from SeaWorld San Antonio.
Corporate Park News
I forgot that there is a Sesame Street Learn & Play attraction at American Dream in NJ. So Sesame Street wasn't really exclusive to United Parks.
Also, I saw mention of Rudolph characters being at the United Parks---curiously, they are also at Herschend Parks.
Clearly, the partnership between United and Sesame is over. I'm really curious about the fate of the park in PA.
I definitely think United is going to have to pay up. But I could see Sesame not getting everything they want. I remember Sesame suing the makers of the Happy Time Murders movie for hurting their brand---and Sesame lost that lawsuit.
Corporate Park News
I forgot that there is a Sesame Street Learn & Play attraction at American Dream in NJ. So Sesame Street wasn't really exclusive to United Parks.
Also, I saw mention of Rudolph characters being at the United Parks---curiously, they are also at Herschend Parks.
Clearly, the partnership between United and Sesame is over. I'm really curious about the fate of the park in PA.
I definitely think United is going to have to pay up. But I could see Sesame not getting everything they want. I remember Sesame suing the makers of the Happy Time Murders movie for hurting their brand---and Sesame lost that lawsuit.
Assuming the deal is terminated, I strongly suspect this will be the last year for Sesame Place San Diego (which is actually in Chula Vista a good 20 minutes from any other tourist attractions down there). The property is too small to work as a stand-alone attraction and too far from SeaWorld to really work as a companion waterpark. United would be better off taking the few rides worth repurposing for their other parks and trying to sell the land.
The future of the Philadelphia park is a lot more up in the air, but I wouldn't be surprised if United tries to offload it quickly rather than spend the money to retain the property without the Sesame branding (which I suspect would generate much less revenue than it currently does).
The future of the Philadelphia park is a lot more up in the air, but I wouldn't be surprised if United tries to offload it quickly rather than spend the money to retain the property without the Sesame branding (which I suspect would generate much less revenue than it currently does).
Personally, I don’t see Sesame Place PA surviving at all without the IP. It would be an utterly massive undertaking of retheming the park, and I can’t think of any IP aimed towards the same audience (that isn’t owned by Disney) with more staying power than Sesame Street.
Truly a shame if that’s what it comes to, but I have a bad feeling that’s where we’re headed unless the park is sold to Sesame Workshop and they either operate it themselves or find another operator.
Truly a shame if that’s what it comes to, but I have a bad feeling that’s where we’re headed unless the park is sold to Sesame Workshop and they either operate it themselves or find another operator.
Sesame Place probably could operate just fine without an IP. Most of the locals come for the water park. Shoulder season operations might be a bit harder though, as the shows give families a reason to visit outside of water park season.
I don’t know who your lawyer friend is and I’m not going to question her expertise, and I’m no legal expert myself, but I’m struggling to understand this point.
How does the fact that Sesame “waited a while” to file a lawsuit against United weaken Sesame’s case? It seems pretty cut-and-dry to me that they sued once it was clear United had no intention to pay their bills, and the other grievances they list simply serve to bolster their argument that United is a willful bad actor with a track record of breaching their contract. Your lawyer friend is saying that because Sesame hadn’t sued for those other issues sooner, Sesame is also to blame here — or United isn’t?
I also don’t really get the “no-fault divorce” analogy she used. Isn’t the whole definition of a no-fault divorce that neither side has to prove wrongdoing? If the allegations are true that United hasn’t paid their bills, then how could that breach of contract constitute “no fault”? United’s counter that Sesame hasn’t been a perfect partner either isn’t really relevant to the question of whether United straight up didn’t pay their fees. If anything, it feels like both sides are arguing that the other violated the terms of their contract — which is the exact opposite of a “no-fault” divorce.