Boy Scouts threaten to sue Oakland-based nonprofit for using 'scouts' in name

[Kudu]

[h=1]Boy Scouts threaten to sue Oakland-based nonprofit for using 'scouts' in name[/h] By Paul T. Rosynsky

Oakland Tribune

Posted: 08/23/2013 05:55:41 AM PDT | Updated: about 11 hours ago

 

 

OAKLAND -- Youth groups beware: Don't use "scouts" in your name unless you want a fight from one of the largest youth organizations in the country. Oakland-based nonprofit Hacker Scouts, a group that fosters science, engineering and technology learning, is learning that lesson.

Less than a year after the youth organization was formed, the Boy Scouts of America sent a letter demanding the removal of "scouts" from their name and threatening a lawsuit if Hacker Scouts refused to honor the request.

The Boy Scouts of America says it's simply trying to "protect its intellectual property and brand." Hacker Scouts representatives say they're being bullied.

 

"Scouting has been around a lot longer than the boy scouts," said Samantha Cook, founder and executive director of Hacker Scouts. "It seems ridiculous that they can own that word."

 

http://tinyurl.com/kejr9d2

 

 

[walk in the woods]

Yeah, I'm not a lawyer but I believe the BSA has to send the cease and desist along with the threat to sue to protect the brand. If you opened a restaurant and started offering Big Macs on the menu, you can bet McDonalds would be beating down your door as soon as they found out. Not that anybody would confuse a real burger with a McDonald's burger but you get the idea. Not great press though for the BSA. Going to be a tough couple of years coming up.

[Basementdweller]

My understanding is the did exactly that to the Baden Powell Scout Association which quickly became Baden Powell Service Association. Just as Royal Rangers, Awana, Campfire don't use scouts.....Nor will what ever Oh my Honor comes up with ....

 

Millennial...

[Basementdweller]

Yeah, I'm not a lawyer but I believe the BSA has to send the cease and desist along with the threat to sue to protect the brand. If you opened a restaurant and started offering Big Macs on the menu, you can bet McDonalds would be beating down your door as soon as they found out. Not that anybody would confuse a real burger with a McDonald's burger but you get the idea. Not great press though for the BSA. Going to be a tough couple of years coming up.

Who cares as long as my boys keep showing up to the meetings and the unit continues to grow?????

[JoeBob]

There are so many other names that a youth group of 'hackers' could use. Why choose 'Scouts' if they weren't trying to get mileage from BSA's brand?

 

(Note: This is probably the first and last time that I'll ever agree with Irving on something!)

[RememberSchiff]

Perhaps this ia a legal reminder to the alternative scout group On My Honor which is "Birthing a Scouting Alternative" at their first national convention Sep 6-7. At this convention, they will reveal their new name. http://www.onmyhonor.net/

 

I agree with this editorial by Make Magazine http://makezine.com/2013/08/22/boy-scouts-do-your-best/ - BSA acting like a business and that is meant in a bad way. The editorial concludes:

 

Why can’t the BSA treat this as not a legal or business issue, but a moral one?

 

This is about kids. This is about organizations that want to emulate Robert Baden-Powell’s goal of providing a framework for young people to develop character through learning self-sufficiency and making things themselves. This is about understanding there can be multiple paths to the same goal, and that there needs to be a variety of organizations to allow all kids to find the path that’s right for them.

 

This is about realizing that doing the best we can for our kids is more important than protecting a corporation’s branding.

 

Our challenge to the Boy Scouts of America is then to do what’s morally right here: work out a licensing framework for organizations that want to call themselves “scouts†that protects the BSA’s business interests while reinforcing the core goal of scouting, which is to help kids. The BSA has seen across-the-board declines in memberships recently (nearly 10 percent drop in registered youths in the last eight years while the overall population of kids has increased), and increasing the number of organizations in this space is just the kind of diversification that could ensure that more kids than ever come to value scouting, just not Scouting®. I guarantee that the good will this would engender towards their organization would be worth far more than what they think they’re protecting by fighting with those who have the very same goal.

 

I wonder if National will go to the dogs next?

http://www.boston.com/community/pets..._in_22_states/

 

My $0.02

[qwazse]

Or, is it dishonorable to let the public associate the largest and oldest movements in the USA with your novelty? Even if that movement is in its nadir, isn't it more trustworthy to take a name that doesn't force the association?

[Basementdweller]

Perhaps this ia a legal reminder to the alternative scout group On My Honor which is "Birthing a Scouting Alternative" at their first national convention Sep 6-7. At this convention, they will reveal their new name. http://www.onmyhonor.net/

 

I agree with this editorial by Make Magazine http://makezine.com/2013/08/22/boy-scouts-do-your-best/ - BSA acting like a business and that is meant in a bad way. The editorial concludes:

 

Why can’t the BSA treat this as not a legal or business issue, but a moral one?

 

This is about kids. This is about organizations that want to emulate Robert Baden-Powell’s goal of providing a framework for young people to develop character through learning self-sufficiency and making things themselves. This is about understanding there can be multiple paths to the same goal, and that there needs to be a variety of organizations to allow all kids to find the path that’s right for them.

 

This is about realizing that doing the best we can for our kids is more important than protecting a corporation’s branding.

 

Our challenge to the Boy Scouts of America is then to do what’s morally right here: work out a licensing framework for organizations that want to call themselves “scouts†that protects the BSA’s business interests while reinforcing the core goal of scouting, which is to help kids. The BSA has seen across-the-board declines in memberships recently (nearly 10 percent drop in registered youths in the last eight years while the overall population of kids has increased), and increasing the number of organizations in this space is just the kind of diversification that could ensure that more kids than ever come to value scouting, just not Scouting®. I guarantee that the good will this would engender towards their organization would be worth far more than what they think they’re protecting by fighting with those who have the very same goal.

 

I wonder if National will go to the dogs next?

http://www.boston.com/community/pets..._in_22_states/

 

My $0.02

Whether we like it or not Scouting is a business.....It has to at least break even.

 

How long can a Troop, Pack or crew run at a deflect????

 

How many camps have been sold because they have lost money????

 

How many councils have been merged because of it????

 

 

The BSA is a brand just like Nike or Under armour or Apple, who goes after Samsung for look alike stuff all the time..... They should protect the brand......

 

 

The problem I have with the BSA finances is the quarter million dollar salaries some of the Council SE's receive.... and then selling off camps to simply improve the endowments.....

[RememberSchiff]

Perhaps this ia a legal reminder to the alternative scout group On My Honor which is "Birthing a Scouting Alternative" at their first national convention Sep 6-7. At this convention, they will reveal their new name. http://www.onmyhonor.net/

 

I agree with this editorial by Make Magazine http://makezine.com/2013/08/22/boy-scouts-do-your-best/ - BSA acting like a business and that is meant in a bad way. The editorial concludes:

 

Why can’t the BSA treat this as not a legal or business issue, but a moral one?

 

This is about kids. This is about organizations that want to emulate Robert Baden-Powell’s goal of providing a framework for young people to develop character through learning self-sufficiency and making things themselves. This is about understanding there can be multiple paths to the same goal, and that there needs to be a variety of organizations to allow all kids to find the path that’s right for them.

 

This is about realizing that doing the best we can for our kids is more important than protecting a corporation’s branding.

 

Our challenge to the Boy Scouts of America is then to do what’s morally right here: work out a licensing framework for organizations that want to call themselves “scouts†that protects the BSA’s business interests while reinforcing the core goal of scouting, which is to help kids. The BSA has seen across-the-board declines in memberships recently (nearly 10 percent drop in registered youths in the last eight years while the overall population of kids has increased), and increasing the number of organizations in this space is just the kind of diversification that could ensure that more kids than ever come to value scouting, just not Scouting®. I guarantee that the good will this would engender towards their organization would be worth far more than what they think they’re protecting by fighting with those who have the very same goal.

 

I wonder if National will go to the dogs next?

http://www.boston.com/community/pets..._in_22_states/

 

My $0.02

The Hacker Scouts are offering to pay a license fee for use of the term "Scouts".

 

With more alternative scout groups, I wonder if that Congressional charter will be revised as much has changed since June 15, 1916.

[King Ding Dong]

Perhaps this ia a legal reminder to the alternative scout group On My Honor which is "Birthing a Scouting Alternative" at their first national convention Sep 6-7. At this convention, they will reveal their new name. http://www.onmyhonor.net/

 

I agree with this editorial by Make Magazine http://makezine.com/2013/08/22/boy-scouts-do-your-best/ - BSA acting like a business and that is meant in a bad way. The editorial concludes:

 

Why can’t the BSA treat this as not a legal or business issue, but a moral one?

 

This is about kids. This is about organizations that want to emulate Robert Baden-Powell’s goal of providing a framework for young people to develop character through learning self-sufficiency and making things themselves. This is about understanding there can be multiple paths to the same goal, and that there needs to be a variety of organizations to allow all kids to find the path that’s right for them.

 

This is about realizing that doing the best we can for our kids is more important than protecting a corporation’s branding.

 

Our challenge to the Boy Scouts of America is then to do what’s morally right here: work out a licensing framework for organizations that want to call themselves “scouts†that protects the BSA’s business interests while reinforcing the core goal of scouting, which is to help kids. The BSA has seen across-the-board declines in memberships recently (nearly 10 percent drop in registered youths in the last eight years while the overall population of kids has increased), and increasing the number of organizations in this space is just the kind of diversification that could ensure that more kids than ever come to value scouting, just not Scouting®. I guarantee that the good will this would engender towards their organization would be worth far more than what they think they’re protecting by fighting with those who have the very same goal.

 

I wonder if National will go to the dogs next?

http://www.boston.com/community/pets..._in_22_states/

 

My $0.02

I wouldn't get your hopes up for the House, Senate and President to agree on anything for the foreseeable future.

[RememberSchiff]

Perhaps this ia a legal reminder to the alternative scout group On My Honor which is "Birthing a Scouting Alternative" at their first national convention Sep 6-7. At this convention, they will reveal their new name. http://www.onmyhonor.net/

 

I agree with this editorial by Make Magazine http://makezine.com/2013/08/22/boy-scouts-do-your-best/ - BSA acting like a business and that is meant in a bad way. The editorial concludes:

 

Why can’t the BSA treat this as not a legal or business issue, but a moral one?

 

This is about kids. This is about organizations that want to emulate Robert Baden-Powell’s goal of providing a framework for young people to develop character through learning self-sufficiency and making things themselves. This is about understanding there can be multiple paths to the same goal, and that there needs to be a variety of organizations to allow all kids to find the path that’s right for them.

 

This is about realizing that doing the best we can for our kids is more important than protecting a corporation’s branding.

 

Our challenge to the Boy Scouts of America is then to do what’s morally right here: work out a licensing framework for organizations that want to call themselves “scouts†that protects the BSA’s business interests while reinforcing the core goal of scouting, which is to help kids. The BSA has seen across-the-board declines in memberships recently (nearly 10 percent drop in registered youths in the last eight years while the overall population of kids has increased), and increasing the number of organizations in this space is just the kind of diversification that could ensure that more kids than ever come to value scouting, just not Scouting®. I guarantee that the good will this would engender towards their organization would be worth far more than what they think they’re protecting by fighting with those who have the very same goal.

 

I wonder if National will go to the dogs next?

http://www.boston.com/community/pets..._in_22_states/

 

My $0.02

You are probably right.

[Kudu]

"The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies:

 

1) The ability of boys to do things for themselves and others,

2) To train them in Scoutcraft, and

3) To teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues,

 

using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916."

　

With more alternative scout groups' date=' I wonder if that Congressional charter will be revised as much has changed since June 15, 1916. [/quote']

　

Really? Which of the 1916 requirements (marked in red on the following URL), are you glad we "revised" out of our side of the agreement?

　

http://inquiry.net/advancement/tf-1st_require_1911.htm

　

Isn't that why we sell Boy Scout camps?

　

William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt said that:

　

The Program = The Requirements

　

The point of specifying the exact date of June 15, 1916, is so after Congress imposes our corporation on the American people as the absolute monopoly on Scouting (defined as Scoutcraft), we can not just decide on June 16th to replace (or redefine) Scoutcraft with, say, "leadership" skills (or "hacker" skills).

　

To the BSA's credit, we waited longer than a day to do that!

　

Yours at 300 feet,

Kudu

http://kudu.net

 

 

 

[RememberSchiff]

Kudu, Not sure I understand your question. In the unlikely event, that Congress would revisit the BSA charter, here goes.

 

"The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies and other youth organizations:

 

1) The ability of youth to do things for themselves and others,

2) To train them in Scoutcraft, and life skills.

3) To teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues,

 

using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916. probably remove as methods change over time

 

30904 Powers

(2) The corporation may dispose in any manner of the whole property of the corporation only with the written consent and affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the corporation.

Are "members" the CO's or scout and scouters? Rewrite! I sure as hell did not vote to shutdown Schiff Reservation!

 

30905 Exclusive rights... have "scout" and "scouting" become genericized like aspirin and escalator?

The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts.

This section does not affect any vested rights.

 

What if another youth group, say the "1911 Scouts" formed and decided to use the requirements listed in your link? I can't understand anyone complaining about their name or program.

 

My $0.01,

[NJCubScouter]

RememberSchiff, regardless of who the "members of the corporation" are (and I'm fairly sure that does not include you or me), notice it says "the whole property of the corporation", emphasis on the word "whole." The way I understand that language, it does not mean a sale of one piece of property (like Schiff), or even some pieces of property, that means a sale (or other "disposition") of ALL of the property of the corporation. That would occur if the BSA was essentially "going out of business" and selling ALL of its property to some other entity. THAT would require a majority vote of the "members", whoever they may be. It would probably also mean that the top brass at National lose their hundreds-of-thousands-a-year salaries, so I don't think you will be seeing it happening any day soon.

[RememberSchiff]

I agree with you. I was trying emphasize (with an imperfect example) that "members" should be clearly defined.