cloversridge

In that document, there's a grid that shows what's subject to license.

Forms, letterhead, envelopes, Annual reports, newsletters, and council and unit websites are excluded for license.

Patches, shirts, etc., generally all product, requires a license.

I'm not sure about the Vision video, but it wouldn't surprise me if maybe BSA is paying the royalties and not passing it on.

I understand that BSA regularly tracks and pays royalties on several books, as well many Norman Rockwell and Joseph Csatari paintings it uses on products and the image of MacKenzie Scout (which belongs to a northeast council, I think).

I long thought that Rockwell images belonged to BSA, but many of were works created by Rockwell for Brown & Bigelow. How many others of us who use those images on things can say the same?

I know some councils have used Rockwell images on FOS and other donor gifts, and I wonder if they paid the royalty? Probably not, because they likely didn't think they had to do so. Yet, if Brown and Bigelow knew (I hear they are notorious for protecting their images), you can bet they'd take action.

In the end, I think BSA has a legal obligation to protect their marks. What's they're doing is no different from the NFL, Warner Brothers, the National Wildlife Federation or others. The trademark law doesn't allow selective enfrocement.

P.S. I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about this. Let me share more about what I've learned:

1. Units and councils may still use the marks for informational and educational purposes. Councils may use the marks for FOS materials, too. They may not use the marks on products (things that are or could be sold) without those products being produced by a BSA licensee.

2. The generic fleur-de-lis is not a proprietary BSA mark (although several versions of what's known as the "Universal Emblem" are, as was mentioned before). Some folks are worrying too much about this.

3. I doubt units and councils are the target of the trademark enforcement. Think about...where's the logic in that? I suspect the trademark enforcement will be focused on the manufacturers of products that are using BSA marks without permission.

I understand that this is a clarification of mark use based on ongoing infringment by manufacturers who make a product for one council, then advertise and try to sell to other councils; as well as issues with web infringments (pay-per-click, porn, etc.), product liability concerns, and overall protection of the marks.

Nattional provided a memo to council SEs, Regional staff and others in mid-October. I also understand that a FAQ-sort of document was issued last week to the same people that answers a number of questions that were raised and provides further clarification on what has to be licensed (I heard that literature, forms, brochures, websites, etc that are administrative are exempt from licensing). I also have heard that some councils have already developed policies for this, East Carolina Council, for one.

I also heard that the scouting.org/identity site is undergoing some changes. Don't know what yet.

Finally, I've also heard the 90-day thing, but I understand that's a worse-case for the application. They're protecting against an onslaught of applications. They realistically think it will be less time. This is for applications, not approvals. One current licensee told me that approvals for licesees generally happen with 24 hours and often times the same day. I think that's a pretty good turn around time.

I'd encourage you all to check with your SE, as I did mine. They should have the coorespondance mentioned above.

Given that BSA's congressional charter grants it exlusive rights to its marks, words and phrases (" The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts."), I'd think they would claim that any mark that associated with Scouting activity in the U.S. would be covered. This would include the generic fleur-de-lis.

I don't have a problem with the protection of trademark rights. I don't think, as some have claimed, that this is bad news for scouting councils or units. It'll be hard in the short-term, but I think the programs and organizations will benefit in the long haul. It probably should have been addressed years ago...then we would have websites like boyslife.com.

My two cents on the topic.