Slashdot Log In
American Red Cross Sued For Using a Red Cross
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Aug 09, 2007 07:40 AM
from the hard-to-win-a-pissing-match-with-a-saint dept.
from the hard-to-win-a-pissing-match-with-a-saint dept.
Swampash sends us a story that even this community may find hard to believe. Johnson & Johnson, the health-products giant that uses a red cross as its trademark, is suing the American Red Cross, demanding the charity halt its use of the red cross symbol on products it sells to the public. It seems J&J began using the trademark in 1887, 6 years after the Red Cross was formed, but 13 years before the charitable organization was chartered by Congress. Lately the ARC has begun licensing the symbol to third parties to use on fund-raising products such as home emergency kits.
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Johnson & Johnson Loses Major Trademark Lawsuit 176 comments
Dekortage writes "As previously discussed here, the health-products giant Johnson & Johnson sued the American Red Cross over use of the ubiquitous 'red cross' logo. J&J has now lost. The presiding judge said Johnson & Johnson's claim against the organization was doubtful because the manufacturer entered into a brand-sharing promotional agreement with the American Red Cross in 1986 — not to mention that the two organizations agreed to share the logo way back in 1895. Sounds like J&J may need to crack open some Tylenol and Band-Aids."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't one of these work?
* Charge $10 for unlimited use by the red cross
Or better yet,
* donate $10,000, as "payment" for the free advertisement.
trademark protected, company not harmed
Parent
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because a giant company is suing a non-profit does not necessarily mean the giant is wrong and the non-profit is right.
Parent
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why why why is the American Red Cross now using it as means to promote commercial products? Indeed an interesting case of "is nothing sacred"...
Parent
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Informative)
Seems to me some folks at the ARC assumed the red cross was their property and forgot to ask permission before using it as a source of revenue.
I believe J&J's issue is ARC is now a direct competator (which they are for certain items) and they are using J&J's symbol against them.
To everyone bitching at J&J, you wouldn't like what the ARC was doing either. Maybe the wording in the lawsuit is a bit extreme, but I'm sure they'll reach an agreement.
Parent
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Just change the name (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Informative)
ps... this is not a shameless plug, personally, I buy whats cheapest on the shelves.. but I will be looking to avoid any J&J stuff now.
Parent
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Informative)
* Acuvue
* Aveeno
* Band-Aid
* Carefree
* Clean & Clear
* K-Y
* Neutrogena
* Rembrandt
* Stayfree
* Tylenol
* Ambi Skin Care
* O.B. Tampons
* Purpose Skin Care
* Reach
* RoC Skincare
* Monistat
* Shower to Shower
Or products from their 230 subsidiaries:
* ALZA Corporation
* Animas Corporation
* BabyCenter, L.L.C.
* Biosense Webster, Inc.
* Centocor, Inc.
* Cilag
* Codman & Shurtleff, Inc.
* Cordis Corporation
* DePuy, Inc.
* Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.
* Ethicon, Inc.
* Gynecare
* Independence Technology, LLC
* Janssen Pharmaceutica
* Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P.
* Johnson & Johnson, Group of Consumer Companies, Inc.
* Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems Inc.
* Johnson & Johnson - Merck Consumer Pharmaceuticals Co.
* Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.
* LifeScan, Inc.
* McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals
* McNeil Nutritionals
* Noramco, Inc.
* Ortho Biotech Products, L.P.
* Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. OCD
* Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical
* Ortho-Neutrogena (a merge of Neutrogena and Ortho Dermatological)
* Personal Products Company
* Penaten
* Pfizer Consumer
* Pharmaceutical Sourcing Group Americas (PSGA)
* Pharmaceutical Group Strategic Marketing (PGSM)
* Peninsula Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
* Scios Inc.
* Tasmanian Alkaloids
* Therakos, Inc.
* Tibotec
* Transform Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
* Veridex, LLC
* Vistakon
I respect your intentions, but good luck stormin' the castle!
Parent
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Informative)
It said these product include baby mitts, nail clippers, combs, toothbrushes, hand sanitizers and humidifiers.
The Red Cross said that many of the products in question were part of health and safety kits, and that profits from the sales -- totaling less than $10 million (7.25 million) -- went to boost Red Cross disaster-response efforts.
It contends that the Red Cross is supposed to use the symbol only in connection with nonprofit relief services.
Parent
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's an article about where the Canadian Red Cross complained about the symbol being used on health kits in video games: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/12/canadian_red
Parent
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
To extend on this line of thought. I could actually see J&J seeing this as a defensive move. If the ARC has been going around and suing companies to make them 'license' their cross, I could EASILY see them going after J&J once they feel confidant enough.
And any time a non-profit enters the commercial realm, then defends it's actions via 'anyone who tries to hurt us is really just hurting people we help!' one should be very, very cautious and cynical.....
Parent
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J (Score:5, Insightful)
They agreed to JnJ's use of the cross logo, as you said, "for certain medical products", but that doesn't mean that JnJ all of a sudden now has exclusive rights.
Neither organization has exclusive rights to it - it is an internationally-accepted symbol, as per the Geneva Convention, a year prior to the trademark registration. That being the case, JnJ are out of line. They have no trademark rights except on those medical devices, and those trademark rights don't take away anyone else's rights to use the symbol.
At this point in time neither JnJ nor the ARC has the right to license its use to others. They're both in the wrong, but JnJ is a lot more in the wrong - the IRC can at least claim that the symbol originated with them.
Parent
Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J (Score:5, Informative)
Very likely not.
From the NY Times version of the story. "The company entered into an agreement with the American Red Cross in 1895. The agreement acknowledged Johnson & Johnson's exclusive right to the red cross as a "trademark for chemical, surgical and pharmaceutical goods of every description," according to the lawsuit."
If the Red Cross ever had exclusive rights to the trademark in the US (It's not clear that they did), they appear to have voluntarily given them up. The lawsuit specifically addresses only products that compete with J&J. Looks to me like a clear violation of both the letter and intent of Trademark law. This seems not to be a case of J&J going after the Red Cross in order to add a few bucks to its bottom line. It looks to be a case of J&J protecting its century old shared trademark from overt, gratuitous infringing actions by the Red Cross.
Note also that J&J suggested arbitration. The Red Cross said no.
Parent
ob (Score:5, Insightful)
Classic case of trade mark infringment. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that J&J have the law on their side in this case. Of course, whether the law is good or not is a different debate (and those of you who know my politics will know my opinion on laws in general...).
This is hardly worthy of front page news, except for the fact that most people think the Red Cross is a good organisation. Doesn't make them immune from trademark law though.
Actually this case is legit (Score:5, Insightful)
They didn't have the right to do that and that's why this is a case.
Parent
Re:Classic case of trade mark infringment. (Score:5, Informative)
It seems to me that the US government has a duty to prevent private companies violating the Geneva Conventions, and if the convention is properly implemented in law, there should be a valid legal reason to strike down J&J's trademark.
Parent
Re:Classic case of trade mark infringment. (Score:5, Informative)
The US signed the First Convention in 1882. I think that's all the directly relevant bits to this case. IANAL.
Parent
Re:Classic case of trade mark infringment. (Score:5, Interesting)
Jolyon
Parent
Re:Classic case of trade mark infringment. (Score:5, Insightful)
True. But nowhere in the Geneva Convention is that special protection extended to commercial usage - it only describes the usage of the symbol on buildings, vehicles, and persons.
It seems to me that you should consider what the Convention says, not what you wish it says.
Parent
Originality? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think if they really go to court over it, J+J might stand a chance of losing that trademark, IMHO.
But IANAL.
Re:Originality? (Score:5, Interesting)
I honestly don't think such a ruling would bother J&J nearly as much as it would bother ARC.
The former may have the rights to it, but never really enforced it. The later has, for most of its modern history, acted more like SCO than a "charitable" organization dedicated to relieving human suffering - Ask a Korean or Vietnam vet their opinion of the Red Cross; prepare to catch an earful, though, because you won't hear much good about them.
Declaring genericide on this particular trademark would make almost everyone happy except the ARC, who doesn't actually have the rights to it in the first place.
Parent
Red Cross is a scam anyway (not a troll) (Score:5, Interesting)
When my grandfather was in Korea, the Red Cross was there alright. They were there SELLING coffee and donuts to the soldiers. "Don't have any money, Shell-shocked G.I.? Tough shit. No donuts for you."
When my uncle died, we contacted the Red Cross because my father was in the field and part of their job was SUPPOSED to be contacting soldiers in the field in family emergencies. They bullshitted us around for a while and finally just told us that they couldn't help us. So we did what generations of military families and disaster victims have done when they realized the Rd Cross had no damn intention of helping them--we went through the government channels and did it that way.
I actively encourage people to NOT give money to the Red Cross. There are plenty of great charities out there but the Red Cross is not one of them.
This whole licensing agreement is just another money-making scheme for them. I just hope Johnson & Johnson wins their suit and screws them good.
Parent
Not it isn't. At least outside the US. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Red Cross in other countries is the last resource for people that otherwise would not receive any medical help, and they do this for free. As for their role in conflict zones like Palestine, it is well documented the heroics to which they go to help victims of military or terrorist attacks.
It has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 3 different occasions for their outstanding contributions in zones of conflict.
Parent
Switzerland (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Switzerland (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Switzerland (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Radio Shack sues for circle-R use (Score:5, Funny)
Misleading Summary—Not Just Infringement (Score:5, Informative)
I heard this on NPR this morning, and they were reporting something rather different.
According to the story on the radio, J&J was suing not simply because the Red Cross is using the symbol—as they have for a century and more—but because they are licensing it to for-profit companies, breaking an agreement J&J made with them in 1895 or so.
...And, on checking the article, that's more or less exactly what it says. Congratulations to Swampash for being a total troll and not even reading the article he submitted. Or possibly kdawson for posting a self-written summary that utterly fails to grasp the point of the article.
Dan Aris
News for who? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want to change it from "News for Nerds" to "News for Anti-Corporate Bigots" or "News for Politically-Correct Drug Company Haters" then this would be a perfect story. It's even got the half-truths and misleading spin in the summary that seems to appeal to bigots and haters these days.
How dare they try to protect their trademark anyway?
J&J Says They Made a Deal with ARC in 1895 (Score:5, Informative)
Among other things, J&J asked the court to prohibit sales of those items and order the defendants to turn over unsold goods and related marketing materials and all monetary gains from sales of the disputed items, which are sold in stores such as Target and Wal-Mart.
In its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the maker of Band-Aids said it has for more than 100 years "owned exclusive trademark rights in the Red Cross Design for first aid and wound care products sold to the consuming public, including first aid kits."
J&J said American Red Cross founder Clara Barton in 1895 signed a deal with J&J agreeing and acknowledging the company's "exclusive use of a red cross as a trademark and otherwise for chemical, surgical, pharmaceutical goods of every description."
Until recently, the two sides have cooperated amicably in enforcing their respective rights, J&J said.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
As I heard the story this morning, the issue is the J & J licensed the use of the red cross trademark to the ARC so long as it was not used for profit.
ARC has now re-licensed the trademark they do not own to for-profit organizations to put on their products, some of which compete with J & J products directly. Yes, the ARC will get a portion of the proceeds from these sales, but the other companies make a profit at the expense of the J & J trademark.
So J & J has no choice but to sue the ARC to prevent them from sub-licensing the trademark they do not own.
Take the emotions out of the discussion, this is purely business. No, it is not big pharma beating on a poor charity, it is a trademark licensee abusing a license agreement in such a way the owner of the trademark is negatively impacted. Until J & J officially turns the trademark over to the ARC, they own and they must defend it.
Parent
Re:J&J might not want to push this (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is exactly why the Red Cross has been putting a lot of effort for years into tightening their grip on that mark. Let's be clear about something, people. I know the knee-jerk reaction is to root for the charitable organization over the big corporation, but I've got to point out a little hypocrisy on the part of the Red Cross president. I have never before seen a cease-and-desist letter from Johnson & Johnson for the use of this mark. I have, however, seen them from the Red Cross.
Some years ago I worked for a company that publishes clip art collections. We maintained a list of "bad elements" that slipped into our sources because it didn't occur to the artists that they were protected by IP law, but that we had received legal notices about. The red cross was one of our biggest offenders (alongside Weber-shaped grills, Olympic rings, cars that looked too much like Beetles, etc.). It was the ARC, not Johnson & Johnson, that made work for me converting them all to puke green. (That's the standard IP-neutral first aid symbol now, by the way: a butt-ugly fluorescent green cross.) I'd often wondered how Johnson & Johnson got away with it, and figured they must have some sort of agreement since they'd both been using it for so long.
So you're right that the defensibility of ownership for either of them is a little iffy, but the fact that I've started to see that horrible green in more places means that it's starting to become known that somebody owns it. My gut tells me that it's usually the ARC that people think of (or get letters from), but if they're now starting to directly compete in the market with Johnson & Johnson, who knows which way a judge or jury would go?
Parent
Re:J&J might not want to push this (Score:5, Insightful)
If they both lose, we all win.
Parent
Leave it to kdawson to put on the spin (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Leave it to kdawson to put on the spin (Score:5, Funny)
As a parent I'm torn between feelings of outrage and a strange compulsion to donate my own children to the red cross...
Parent
Re:"Saint"? Oh please. (Score:5, Interesting)
Cheers!
Parent
Re:"Saint"? Oh please. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the most moronic part about that is that they claim their mark is being misused or diluted or whatever. But because of its widespread use in modern media and the like EVERYONE is going to know by the age of 10 what the symbol means...Medical Help Here!
While I have no love for J&J for this stunt, I have no sympathy for the Red Cross. Taste of their own poison serves them right. They may have done wonderful things in the past, and they are a terribly important organization overall, but they need a swift kick in the balls to get themselves back on track and helping people instead of going after innane bullshit. They have been a monsterous waste of resources as of late, and it is about time someone steps up and fixes it.
Parent
Re:Hey moron! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent