I looked back at some of the Pepsi vs Coke lawsuits. Coke responded once that “... (it) seems as if Pepsi would prefer to fight in the courts rather than the marketplace.” While I don’t see this as a fight, GSUSA seems to, and instead of focusing inward to see why girls are not joining (or leaving) they are fighting in the media and court. That may work short term but long term parents and kids will find and choose the best fit for them (or none)... regardless of program names.
BSA is offering refunds to any girls who joined Cub Scouts thinking it was Girl Scouts. Surbaugh also notes that Scouts BSA was intentionally chosen vs Scouts.
I see it like a cola war. Imagine if Pepsi and Coke didn't have strongly distinct names. Instead they were named "West Cola" and "East Cola" and divided the market using the Mississippi river. West Cola would only market to people west of Mississippi. East Cola would market to people east of Mississippi. Today, we'd call that agreement anti-competitive and illegal.
Then, imagine "East Cola" (Pepsi) gets all these calls from people west of the Mississippi saying sell to us. We like your product better. So, then East Cola decides to market to everyone and decides to call themselves "Cola New".
I think West Cola would respond exactly like GSUSA. There is no new name East Cola could use that would help things. The real issue is East Cola is now selling west of the Mississippi as brand uniqueness depended on each selling to their own separate market as the names, trademarks, terms were just too close.
I'm not a lawyer, but it's hard to unravel branding when the uniqueness came from agreeing to not compete and not the branding itself.
In my experience, an appeal is handled by convening an EBOR at the District level, chaired by the District Advancement Chairman. YES, I would appeal. I agree with the others above...if the project was not "up to snuff", then the time to correct it was when the proposal was approved, and when the completion was approved...at both the Unit and the District level. By the time the scout gets to the EBOR (at the unit level), there should be no question that the requirements were met, as evidenced by the appropriate signatures on the project workbook. The project gets discussed, certainly, but there is no "passing or failing" of the project at that point. The assumption SHOULD be that the other adults involved, who signed off on the project, knew what they were doing and looking at.
That being said, perhaps the write-up could use some "beefing up" highlighting and emphasizing the PLANNING and LEADING involved, rather than the actual work. I don't agree that starting from scratch with a new project is necessary. And the age of the scout is irrelevant, unless he is bumping up against 18.