CynicalScouter

You have a MBC yet? Or are you going to be?

My council hasn't said a word. Nothing.

If you log into my.scouting.org at any point in the last 6 weeks. It was also pushed to councils, Scoutbook forums, etc

Under 72 hours before Scouts are going to be allowed to earn this Merit Badge and still NO official requirements released. Wheee!!!!

Canada is the only WOSM member nation that operates two separate programs via a "cooperative agreement". Association des Scouts du Canada Scouts Canada All other nations that have multiple WOSM members operate under a National Federation.

I wouldn't rely on Newsmax for news. That said, if you read the lawsuit GSUSA filed, you'd see why the objected. In short, for decades BSA had agreed in writing to both GSUSA and to the Patent and Trademark Office (Scout/Scouting is trademarked) that they would NOT use the word "Scout" unless it was clear they were focused on BOYS. Allowing and marketing to girls Cub Scouts and Scouts, BSA using the phrase "Scout Me In" changed that equation. That was an agreement that was in place since at least the 1970s and I detailed here. And the GSUSA is asking the court to force BSA to go back to that in terms of how it markets

Interesting. Never knew. I know about the annual reports and monthly updates for the Council, but I didn't realize they got national numbers, too. Thanks!

First, there is a 0% chance of Congress repealing these Congressional charters. Even when this was attempted against the BSA (due to the refusal to allow openly homosexual scouts/scouters) the bill failed (HR 4892 of 2000). And attempting to deprive GSUSA of its charter? There's no way. I mean, I cannot see it. Anyone who even introduced the bill would be pilloried as a misogynist sexist pig trying to deprive girls of opportunities. Second, since there's no way the charters are getting pulled, that does NOT stop anyone from creating their own outdoors group (Trail Life) or even one that lays claim to the Baden-Powell legacy (Baden-Powell Service Association, although they are changing their name).

If that was the case, they would have asked the court to order BSA to go back to the 2017 policy. They didn't.

Do you have an official source for this? I'm going to be be real curious about what comes out of the December recharter numbers. I know in my DISTRICT we've only lost 1 unit (troop), but Cub Scouts the number of SCOUTS looks like a 40% drop. A lot of "we'll come back when COVID relents".

I think there's a disagreement to this extent 1) Some are claiming that GSUSA has no right so SCOUT or SCOUTING as a trademark whatsoever. I disagree and BSA has admitted GSUSA has rights to the term (and I agree wit GSUSA that it does have certain rights here), but... 2) BSA infringed on the trademarks but only to a minimal extent. Here I disagree with GSUSA that the infringement was catastrophic and should result in BSA paying millions.

To the court. One of GSUSA's arguments is that BSA made the GSUSA/BSA distinction blurred in order to trade in on GSUSA's good name and reputation in order to recruit girls.

Yeah, GSUSA was absolutely furious. This was their official statement when BSA announced in 2017.

As to point 1, yes BSA has admitted councils and units and individual volunteers made mistakes (like telling parents that GSUSA was merged into BSA, councils using GSUSA logos) but that there was no damage OR if there was, like a parent paying fees to BSA, they got refunds. GSUSA wants money damages for infringement. As for 2, note that the lawsuit is NOT asking for BSA to stop allowing girls in. What they are asking for is that any BSA marketing material include something like a "not affiliated with GSUSA" disclaimer. BSA would be prohibited from

The citations to the documents and PTO decisions were provided. That you want to ignore them is of no consequence to me.

Yep. And GSUSA can point to BSA's lying in 2004 to the Patent and Trademark Office. That would be relevant. And in 1979 admitting GSUSA had the trademark rights. And in 1978 And in 1982 BSA was WARNED by the Patent and Trademark Office not to do what it did. But sure, let's pretend that never happened.

You changed the parameters. GSUSA isn't objecting to the use in the context of Explorer Scouts or Sea Scouts. You brought them up. And as GSUSA noted, it DID attempt to enforce ALL such cliamed right in the dcades that followed. I cited enforcement efforts in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. They are objecting to the use in the context of the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts (now Scouts, BSA) program. NOTHING of what you post actually address GSUSA's legal claims. Instead you are throwing up photos as if that is a legal argument. Again, here's a copy of the complaint. Why not address it and not post photos? If you incapable of addressing GSUSA's legal arguments that's fine. As you note, trademark law is tricky. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Scouts.pdf 709959040_Scouts1.pdf

Yep. Which is why GSUSA noted that some BSA councils were using GSUSA trademarked logos and outright telling people that GSUSA was merged into BSA. Again, that's not a fact in dispute. And BSA's general counsel issued several apology letters to GSUSA for it (I linked to one).

And BSA admitted it shouldn't do what it did to the Patent and Trademark Office. Or was BSA lying in 2004? Care to actually respond to GSUSA's argument? I'm honestly curious. And GSUSA asserted its right to the trademark from early on.

That's BSA's argument. Where mistakes were made, refunds were given and councils or units were told to knock it off. BSA's General Counsel even wrote apology letters to GSUSA. GSUSA of course used those apology emails as proof BSA violated the trademarks and therefore needs to pay triple damages, https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.504196/gov.uscourts.nysd.504196.1.11.pdf

Look at the wording, however. This is different and BSA acknowledged for decades that the would/could only use the terms "Scout" and "Scouting" in particular ways that did NOT include girls and did NOT impact GSUSA's rights to their trademarked terms. Chicken sandwich isn't trademarked. Scout and Scouting is. I'm not inclined to cut and paste what I've already written, so here.

It's both. First, keep in mind when BSA announced this, GSUSA came out with a statement that was nothing short of insulting. https://abcnews.go.com/US/girl-scouts-slam-boy-scouts-decision-accept-girls/story?id=50433448 Second, SOME units and councils screwed up the rollout and in fact did us GSUSA logos, trademarks, etc., effectively handing GSUSA this lawsuit on a platter. So it is both legitimate (there was trademark infringement, everyone agrees, BSA however claims it was minimal) and sour grapes.

GSUSA is claiming that infringing the trademark alone entitled them to damages even if no one made any money off anything. GSUSA is also separately claiming in fact BSA and units made money off this. Moreover, GSUSA is basically saying that BSA National controls how this was rolled out and controls the units and councils (and in particular use of branding and trademarks), therefore it is National that needs to pay. There's also the separate issue of BSA using terms like "Scouting" outside the context of boys only.

No, I don't. I think it was an accident across the board.. GSUSA's claim is a) it wasn't an accident and b) even if it was an accident, BSA needs to pay for trademark infringement.