Battle of the Sexes: Girl Scouts Sues Boy Scouts for Trademark Infringement
Since their respective beginnings, the Boy Scouts (of America) limited their membership to boys and the Girl Scouts (of the United States of America) limited their membership to girls.
December 04, 2018 at 01:54 PM
7 minute read
Since their respective beginnings, the Boy Scouts (of America) limited their membership to boys and the Girl Scouts (of the United States of America) limited their membership to girls. But, in a significant switch, the Boy Scouts recently announced they will now be accepting girls into their ranks. All would be well and good, except for the fact that this transition resulted in a lawsuit for trademark infringement.
The Boys Scouts (BSA) website describes their organization as having more than 2.4 million youth participants and almost 1 million adult volunteers. Since its inception in 1910, BSA has attracted over 110 million participants.
At its peak, the Boy Scouts had over 4 million participants, but membership has declined to almost half that due to a multitude of issues. Many commentators argued that the Boy Scouts decided to admit girls in order to try to reverse their declining enrollment numbers. Others argued that the change is a response to the social backlash over first, the exclusion, and then the inclusion, of gay scoutmasters. Michael Surbaugh, CEO of the Boy Scouts, had another explanation: “This decision to admit girls is true to the BSA's mission and core values outlined in the Scout Oath and Law. The values of Scouting—trustworthy, loyal, helpful, kind, brave and reverent, for example—are important for both young men and women.”
The Girl Scouts was founded in 1912 and reports 50 million alumni, 1.8 million currently registered girls and 800,000 adults. In what appears to be a direct response to the Boy Scouts decision to admit girls, the Girl Scouts website features (in large prominent letters): “Girls are first at Girl Scouts and they always will be” and “In a world of boys' clubs, give your girl a place of her own.”
The trademarks of the Girl Scouts and the Boy Scouts have been used for many years with what intellectual property attorneys call “peaceful coexistence.” That changed when the Boy Scouts announced their decision to admit girls, and started using trademarks commensurate with that switch. In a May 2, press release, the Boys Scouts announced a new name for its program—SCOUTS BSA—for girls aged 11 to 17. The Boys Scouts have also filed trademark registration applications, SCOUTS BSA (“educational services, namely, providing programs and activities for youth”), SCOUTS BSA (“indicating membership in an organization for youth”) and SCOUT LIFE (“magazines directed to the interests of the members of a youth organization”).
Since the Boy Scouts announcement, there have been instances of “confusion” in which Boy Scouts programs and Girl Scouts programs are being “mixed up” because of the wording in advertisements and marketing materials. The Girl Scouts wrote to the Boy Scouts a number of times, accusing the Boy Scouts of trademark infringement. The Boy Scouts described each incident as “inadvertent” and an “unfortunate error,” but the parties failed to reach an amicable solution, and on Nov. 6, the Girl Scouts filed suit against the Boy Scouts in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. A complaint has been filed, a judge has been assigned to the case, and, as of the time of this writing, the Boy Scouts need to complete a response.
A simple search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database reveals many trademark registrations for services (such as educational services) and products (such as cookies) associated with the Girl Scouts mark. Furthermore, the Girl Scouts state in its complaint that it and the Boy Scouts have “coexisted in the marketplace for many decades” and have offered services and programs under the Scout, Scouts and Scouting trademarks. But, the complaint adds that, “Crucially, and until recently these terms when used have either been preceded by words like Boy or Girl that have highlighted the gender-specific nature of each organization's programs.” The Boy Scouts' decision to include girls has “dramatically changed the circumstances that previously allowed its use of trademarks like Scouts and Scouting to coexist.”
The complaint provides numerous examples of how the Girl Scouts trademark rights have been violated:
- A Boy Scouts fundraising flier for the “implementation of our New BSA Girl Scouting Programs” (capitalization in the original).
- A flier for a Boy Scout evening program with a “Girl Scout Volunteer Opportunity.”
- A website with a posting by a Boy Scouts leader displaying a “Boys/Girls Scouts of America Volunteer Form.”
- An announcement concerning the formation of a “Girl Scouts BSA Troop.”
- A Facebook posting from a Boy Scout leader to “Come talk to me about the Girl Scouts BSA Troops forming in Kirkland!”
The complaint also describes instances of consumer confusion in which parents intending to register their children for Girl Scouts inadvertently signed up for Boy Scouts. (One parent allegedly called a Girl Scouts council asking if her mistakenly paid Boy Scouts enrollment fee could be transferred to the Girl Scouts—it could not).
As a first cause of action, the Boy Scouts is accused of federal trademark infringement, by using the marks Scouts and Scouting that are “confusingly similar” to the Girl Scouts trademarks. These uses, the complaint alleges, “have caused and are likely to cause confusion, mistake and deception among consumers.”
As a second cause of action, the Boy Scouts is accused of Federal Unfair Competition.
Other causes of action include common law trademark infringement, trademark dilution (basically an erosion of the Girl Scout's current trademarks) and tortious interference.
On the one hand, this author wonders if the examples cited by the Girl Scouts have nothing to do with Boy Scout's national headquarters. In other words, did the incidents occur simply because Boy Scouts volunteers were either misinformed or ignorant of the requirements of U.S. trademark law? On the other hand, Boy Scouts has an obligation to control actions (of their volunteers) that incur legal liability and bears a responsibility for infractions thereof. With millions of volunteers all over the country, insisting that the rights of the Girl Scouts be respected is no small task, yet if the Boy Scouts cannot do so then an appropriate remedy might be to deny them a right to use the Scouts mark without a gender specific prefix.
The Boy Scouts have not yet filed a response to the complaint, but it will be interesting to see if it alleges that some levels of confusion between marks used by the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts have always existed. Merely as speculation, they might look for evidence to support a belief that the current confusion has always existed, and has nothing to do with their new mixed-gender policies.
Or, perhaps the two parties will find a way to settle their differences. The Boy Scout law requires that a Boy Scout “Obey the laws of country.” The Girl Scout law requires that a Girl Scout “use resources wisely.” Now would be a good time for both parties to follow their laws by sitting down together and reaching a fair and amicable resolution.
Lawrence E. Ashery is a partner in the Philadelphia office of Caesar Rivise. He focuses his practice on all aspects of intellectual property law. He can be reached at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCould Mounting Litigation Over Contraceptive Depo-Provera Gain Traction in Philadelphia?
4 minute readExciting Docket: A Preview of the US Supreme Court's October Term 2024
8 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250