Boy Scouts Bully Hacker Scouts Into Submission 289
b1tbkt writes "Youth-focused Maker organization 'Hacker Scouts' has announced their decision to surrender their name due to bullying by the Boy Scouts of America. It appears that BSA has interpreted their federal charter to include a claim on any and all use of the term 'Scout' in an organization's name. The litmus test for such a claim, so far as I'm aware, is the likelihood of causing confusion. The term 'Scout' is sufficiently generic, though, and by this reasoning most every airline in the world would need to eliminate 'Airlines' from their name."
No (Score:5, Insightful)
No, learn how copyright law works. The BAS is forced to do so by interpretations from the last few decades. Further, it's a deliberate re-use of their brand name; not just "scout" as in the dictionary definition, but in the specific context of non-profit national youth organization.
Unfortunately I have to side with the Scouts (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/Licensing/Protecting%20the%20Brand/Boy%20Scouts%20of%20America%20Trademark%20Listing.aspx
They have to defend their trademark, or they will lose it. IMHO, "Hacker Scouts" is confusing and when I first heard it I thought it was a Scout-related computer group.
In this case there is merit (Score:4, Insightful)
In this particular case I think there is some merit. The goals of the organizations, how they operate, and the "user base" are similar. "Scouts" is nowhere near as generic as "airlines". Obviously the Hacker Scouts is specifically named after the Boy/Girl Scouts.
It's more like me marketing a cereal called "Apple Loops" or something. Generic words but I wouldn't last 2 seconds in court against Kellogg's because I'm targeting the same audience just like Hacker Scouts is targeting the same people as the other "Scouts".
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, because no one would use "Scouts" for girls [wikipedia.org], would they?
Re:I'm shocked (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dumb reasoning from Slashdot, per usual (Score:3, Insightful)
Techies don't understand legal reasoning or the law.
No one with a brain does.
Bullying? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I don't think that word means what you think it means".
Since when is protecting your trademarked name bullying? It's simply business. The law forces organizations to do this or they lose their right to their own name. Like the Boy Scouts or not, the problem here is the law.
Turning in my Eagle Scout badge (Score:3, Insightful)
I can remember a day when Boy Scouts of America would have been approving of something like hackerscouts.org because they would have shared a central theme; curiosity, experimentation, education, science -- all good things to interest young people. It's disappointing to see the BSA stooping to such douchenozzly levels. The have apparently lost enough positive virutue I would not want to be associated with them today.
Re:No (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, the people you ripped off and are asking you to stop are horrible bigots with no reputation left to protect.
It's ok to steal from people whose political and ethical standards are different than yours. Check.
I dare say that the reputation of the Boy Scouts is considerably better than "hacker" for most of the public. Most people don't hate them quite as much as you do, and there are still a lot of people who would prefer to hire an Eagle Scout than someone who makes it a life ambition to break into computers. That's how most of the people view this.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
The hacking group claims they are creative. They should prove it --- the next creative work should be a creative new name.
Any businessperson knows you must have your own creative and unique names and marks. You cannot ride the coattails of another organization's name without the risk of a lawsuit. A quick search of TESS shows the word "Scout" by itself has multiple trademarks on it. Since this is the name of a youth group and the BSA and GSA have trademarks on "Scout" in youth groups, there is a clear trademark case to be made, and fought about in the courts.
But it gets more complicated than that.
Both the Boy Scouts of America and Girl Scouts of America have a charter from the United States congress. Their charters give them additional power beyond traditional copyright law. Specifically, they include "exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases" for their organizations which extends beyond traditional
So first off, all organizations MUST sue when they discover other people using their marks. It is not an option. Trademark holders are required either to defend the mark in the courts or risk losing the mark. So the BSA really doesn't have much of a choice in the matter. The marks they use are also boosted by the congressional charter, so any fight brought by the "Hacker Scouts" will face both the traditional trademark battle (which is difficult) and a congressional charter (which is also difficult).
The group did something any business lawyer would have warned them about --- avoid using any names that are already trademarked. They chose to pick a word that is already trademarked, and are now facing the inevitable consequences of it.
Bullying? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, that's quite the bullying there.
Once the BSA found out about the name, they sent some of their older members over to intimidate, physically threaten, and wedgie the heck out of the HS kids until they agreed to the name change.
Wait...no, they didn't.
Ahh, they verbally abused the HS group, calling them a bunch of whiny geeks with no right to the name.
No, they didn't do that either.
Oh....they sent a letter, asking that the HS change their name as they felt it may be confusing with their organization. If they failed to comply, they were willing to allow the courts (you know, that group your tax dollars go to partially in order to settle this kind of dispute?) decide on the matter.
Yep, that's quite the "bullying" there.
I've gotta start keeping score on Slashdot. 1 point for every misleading, sensationalist, or simply factually incorrect headline I see. At 10 points a month my reward is to quit reading this stupid site.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe having those charters should subject them to being subject to certain civil rights laws as a public organization rather than allowed to be discriminatory like a private group has the perogative to be.