American Red Cross Sued For Using a Red Cross

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.

Johnson & Johnson are not in the wrong here, I

[Anonymous Coward]

J & J have every right to do this. They have been letting the ARC use the symbol on non-commercial products for years. J & J want ARC to stop using their trade-marked image on commercial products.

-Too Lazy To Register AC

Re:Originality?

[daeg]

The thing is, where exactly is the red cross J+J mark used? I don't see it on their website, www.jnj.com [jnj.com]. I don't see it on a few J+J products I looked at in my bathroom cabinet, either. Their primary mark is Johnson + Johnson in a cursive script. The only thing remotely close to a block letter 'cross' (or 'plus') symbol is the '+' between 'Johnson' and 'Johnson', and it doesn't resemble the Red Cross mark at all and I have never seen the J+J '+' by itself.

Misleading Summary—Not Just Infringement

[danaris]

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

According to Wikipedia

[rainlord]

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a private humanitarian institution founded in 1863 in Geneva, Switzerland. Its 25-member committee has a unique authority under international humanitarian law to protect the life and dignity of the victims of international and internal armed conflicts.

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_cross [wikipedia.org] - which would be more than 6 years prior to J&J forming and starting to use the same symbol. Besides (although IANAL) it should be, as others have and will mention, prior art. The cross is a symbol for many things, and I'm sue it's been used on packaging (such as the bible, which is a product to some degree) for many many years prior to J&J coming along.

Re:Switzerland

[Tiberius_Fel]

I am well aware of what Switzerland's flag looks like, but just switching the colours would make it slightly different (hence, derivative work). But this was a joke, which I somehow get the impression you missed. :)

Re:I understand...

[bleh-of-the-huns]

This is exactly what I will be doing, at least as much as possible. Unfortunately there are so many J&J products on the market, hell there are a bunch in my house that I did not even know where J&J products. On the bright side, my fiance is a huge fan or organics and natural products, of which I do not think J&J make any. Apparently there is a brand called Method (we get ours at target.. and I hate target...) that has most household and personal cleaners that are all natural (or so my fiance tells me) to replace J&J products..

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.

Bad Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

The real danger here is that the court will rule that a red cross on a white background is a public domain symbol that NEITHER entity owns copyright on. It's a pretty old symbol (dating, arguably, to the crusades). If that happens, then J&J is worse off than not litigating.

The best result for both parties is to settle with some sort of agreement not to sue--then they both can claim they defended their trademark and it's used under license, without the danger of anyone using the symbol.

Frankly, though, I don't think that's socially optimal. It IS a bloody public domain symbol. How does one indicate on a sign where the first aid station is in a public place? That's right--red cross on a white background.

Re:Wow...

[dwarfking]

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.

Re:Originality?

[nazh]

Their First Aid products uses the cross, you can find it on their Band-Aid [band-aid.com] site.

Re:Switzerland

[the agent man]

no, its not a joke. The Red Cross was intentionally designed based on the Swiss flag by reversing the color scheme. In other words it IS derivative work. This happened in 1864 by the IKRK. The Red Cross is an international, not just an American, organization with its root in Switzerland. Switzerland should sue J+J. In case you can read German: http://www.geschichte-schweiz.ch/schweizer-flagge- schweizerkreuz.html [geschichte-schweiz.ch]

Re:Switzerland

[Tiberius_Fel]

Gah, I was unclear again. My line about Switzerland suing was the joke. I believed he was serious. :-) And I can read German, actually. I'll translate the relevant part of the "Das Rote Kreuz" section: The Red Cross During the founding of the International Committees of the Red Cross, on the Initiative of Henri Dunant and General Dufour, in 1864 Dufour suggested the reversal of the Swiss Cross (Red on White Background) as the emblem.

Re:Classic case of trade mark infringment.

[bcmm]

J&J have the trademark in the area of medicines and so on, and now the ARC is using that trademark to promote their own produces.

I think that J&J have the law on their side in this case.

Except that the emblems of the Red Cross have special status in international law. Their main purpose is to indicate buildings, vehicles and personal which are used solely for treating the injured and may not be attacked. From Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention [wikisource.org] (1864, last revision 1949):

With the exception of the cases mentioned in the following paragraphs of the present Article, the emblem of the red cross on a white ground and the words " Red Cross" or " Geneva Cross " may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments, the personnel and material protected by the present Convention and other Conventions dealing with similar matters.

Skipped a bit covering exactly how National Red Cross Societies (e.g. ARC) are allowed to use the emblems for purposes other than protection, during peacetime.

As an exceptional measure, in conformity with national legislation and with the express permission of one of the National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies, the emblem of the Convention may be employed in time of peace to identify vehicles used as ambulances and to mark the position of aid stations exclusively assigned to the purpose of giving free treatment to the wounded or sick.

So, if J&J are using the Red Cross emblem on stuff they are not giving away for free, they are violating the First Geneva Convention (one of the most important and widely respected international conventions, except in Guantanamo Bay).

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.

J&J Says They Made a Deal with ARC in 1895

[Anonymous Coward]

From Reuters:

Johnson & Johnson on Wednesday sued the American Red Cross over the use by the relief group and its partners of J&J's trademark red cross logo on first aid kits, hand sanitizer and medical gloves sold to the public.

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.

Leave it to kdawson to put on the spin

[everphilski]

J&J licenses the right to the red cross logo to the ARC for free for nonprofit uses. How nice of them! However, the ARC then goes and sublicenses that logo to other companies. J&J competitors. Maybe now you appreciate the situation.

Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J

[UltraDerek]

Trademarks don't work that way. Firstly the Red Cross acknowldeged JnJ's trademark to the cross logo for certain commcercial medical products in 1895. That alone more or less ruins their case. Secondly before you get angry and JnJ for being monsters, remember that (in the US) if you don't defend your trademark you lose it. Finally even if you hate corporate America I hope that you can acknowledge that it is equally sleazy for a non-profit organization to hide behind its humanitarian efforts to blatantly violate previous agreements that it has signed and to license something that they do not have the registered trademark for. I think people should take a step back and wait for the case to work its way out, but at face value it appears that the Red Cross is very much in the wrong, and JnJ is in the right (legally).

Re:Classic case of trade mark infringment.

[bcmm]

Missed it first time round, but, Article 53 [wikisource.org] is even clearer:

The use by individuals, societies, firms or companies either public or private, other than those entitled thereto under the present Convention, of the emblem or the designation " Red Cross " or " Geneva Cross " or any sign or designation constituting an imitation thereof, whatever the object of such use, and irrespective of the date of its adoption, shall be prohibited at all times.

Skipped a bit about the Swiss flag...

Nevertheless, such High Contracting Parties as were not party to the Geneva Convention of 27 July 1929, may grant to prior users of the emblems, designations, signs or marks designated in the first paragraph, a time limit not to exceed three years from the coming into force of the present Convention to discontinue such use provided that the said use shall not be such as would appear, in time of war, to confer the protection of the Convention.

And Article 54 [wikisource.org]:

The High Contracting Parties shall, if their legislation is not already adequate, take measures necessary for the prevention and repression, at all times, of the abuses referred to under Article 53.

So even if J&J had the trademark before this came into force, the US Government was legally required to stop them within three years of adopting the Convention. I don't know which revision introduced this, but it would seem that it's been illegal for J&J to use it since 1952 at the latest.

The US signed the First Convention in 1882. I think that's all the directly relevant bits to this case. IANAL. :-)

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

however rather than sue a charity I feel it would have worked better for J&J to have negotiated with the charity rather than go to court. If only because of the publicity associated with the case.

They tried.

From the article:

The company also said that it had offered to engage in third-party mediation to resolve the dispute, but that the Red Cross declined.

Prior Art

[SmithKrieg]

I don't know much about the international law perspective of this, but here's a monument erected in 1864 commemorating the beginnings of the Red Cross. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gedenkstein-rot es-kreuz-1864.jpg [wikipedia.org] My theory is J&J just lost some exclusivity contract with the Red Cross and they're no longer the supplier of all the Red Cross's gauze or something. Soulless...

Re:Wasn't this dealt with a long time ago?

[Ironsides]

~110 years ago, J&J licensed the red cross to the ARC provided it wasn't used for commercial products.

So, it's not that J&J is suing the Red Cross over the Red Cross using a red cross, J&J is suing the Red Cross as the Red Cross licensed out the red cross symbol to be used in the commercial sale of medical products. Trademark law is quite clear in that you can have two or more different groups use the same symbol or name, so long as they are in different industries. With this licensing the Red Cross has done, they have put products competing with J&J into the medical industry, which violates J&J's trademark.

Re:I understand...

[djh101010]

To much to bear?

Just let the parent post stand on its own; that one should go into some hall of fame somewhere. Trying to add to it just detracts from it. It's like taking the Mona Lisa and, you know, touching up some details a bit.

From J&J's Website

[Anonymous Coward]

Johnson & Johnson Statement on Civil Complaint Against The American National Red Cross and Commercial Licensees

NEW YORK, Aug 08, 2007 (BUSINESS WIRE) --

Johnson & Johnson has great respect for the relief work of the American Red Cross (ARC) and over the decades has consistently supported the organization through cash donations, product donations and employee volunteering. The Company remains committed to supporting their mission through its philanthropic efforts.

Both Johnson & Johnson and the American Red Cross have long-held separate and distinct rights to the use of the Red Cross Design trademark.

Johnson & Johnson began using the Red Cross design and "Red Cross" word trademarks in 1887, predating the formation of the American Red Cross. The Company has had exclusive rights to use the Red Cross trademark on commercial products within its longstanding product categories for over 100 years. Since its creation, the American Red Cross has at all times possessed only the rights to use the Red Cross trademark in connection with its non-profit relief services.

After more than a century of strong cooperation in the use of the Red Cross trademark, with both organizations respecting the legal boundaries for each others' unique legal rights, we were very disappointed to find that the American Red Cross started a campaign to license the trademark to several businesses for commercial purposes on all types of products being sold in many different retail and other commercial outlets. These products include baby mitts, nail clippers, combs, toothbrushes and humidifiers. This action is in direct violation of a Federal statute protecting the mark as well as in violation of our longstanding trademark rights.

For the past several months, Johnson & Johnson has attempted to resolve this issue through cooperation and discussion with the ARC, and recently offered mediation, to no avail. The Company was left with no choice but to seek protection of our trademark rights through the courts.

On Wednesday, August 8th, 2007, a civil complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York by JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC against THE AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS and its commercial licensees, LEARNING CURVE INTERNATIONAL, INC., MAGLA PRODUCTS, LLC, WATER-JEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and FIRST AID ONLY, INC.

The goal of this civil complaint is to restore the long-held legal boundaries surrounding the use of the Red Cross trademark.

SOURCE: Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson
Jeff Leebaw, 732-524-3350
[e-mail]

Copyright Business Wire 2007

Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J

[JimDaGeek]

Secondly before you get angry and JnJ for being monsters, remember that (in the US) if you don't defend your trademark you lose it.

That is business BS. As someone pointed out above, J&J could license the trademark to Red Cross for an "undisclosed" amount. That amount could be $0.50 a year or something. All J&J needs to do is show due diligence in protecting their trademark. Licensing the mark to the Red Cross for an undisclosed amount would do just that. Heck, J&J could license the trademark for non-commercial usage for $1 for the next 100 years if they want. It is their mark to license how they want.

As I see it J&J are being corporate whores and will try to get money from a charity that has helped millions around the world for longer than any of us here have been born.

Me personally, I won't be buying any J&J products from no on. As a vegetarian I usually look for all natural products any way.

Re:Leave it to kdawson to put on the spin

[Gr8Apes]

First, per others, the red cross symbol was created prior to J&J's trademark application by an international treaty organization, one that the US signed even. Second, this symbol goes back at least a thousand years, so I'm not sure that you can usurp a commonly used symbol for your own personal trademark, much like Microsoft is still trying futilely to claim the word "windows" as a trademark.

J&J should never have been granted a Trademark on this in the first place, everything after that is irrelevant.

Red Cross is older than the article states.

[FellowConspirator]

The Red Cross, as an organization, was founded in Geneva in 1863 by the Societe Genevoise d'Utilite Publique. The following year, the organization held the Geneva Convention for the "Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field". At that convention, in 1864, the Red Cross adopted the inverse of the Swiss national flag, a red cross on a field of white, as the official emblem of the organization -- at that time known as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The American Red Cross was founded in 1881 with the aim of endorsing US becoming party to the Geneva Convention (which it did in 1882) and extended the ICRC mission to the USA. In doing so, the adopted they adopted the logo of the ICRC (with their approval). Johnson & Johnson adopted the red cross logo in part, because the symbol of a red cross on a field of white had already become synonymous with treating the sick, since, at that point, the logo had already been used in that capacity for 24 years and had become familiar with it through the ARC's activity in treating civil war soldiers.

J&J is being foolish. The suit will cost them their trademark.

Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J

[UltraDerek]

My understanding from reading the Reuters articles published on several websites now (I am not privy to licensing agreements between the ARC and JnJ) is that JnJ allows the Red Cross to use their trademark (the cross) free of charge and has only taken issue with the red cross in turn taking JnJ's trademark (the cross) and both licensing it to JnJ competitors and selling competing medical supply kits with the cross. Again it sounds as if the ARC is actually in the wrong here but it really cannot be determined unless you have access to all of the documentation between the two companies. My best guess is that the ARC will continue to use the red cross (JnJ's mark) and will stop licensing its use and probably selling competing medical kits with the cross. If you are interested you can go to the US PTO's website and search for trademark with serial number 76617076. That is the mark JnJ is contending that the Red Cross is licensing to third parties even though they do not own it.

Re:I understand...

[Otto]

It's not in this article, but it's been going on for many years now. The Red Cross, in it's various countries, has been actively enforcing that the Red Cross symbol is not used by anybody for anything.

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_ crosss_.html [boingboing.net]

Why now?

[nadia2004]

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.
So why didn't they raise any issue in 1900? Why now?

Re:I understand...

[crontabminusell]

From TFA:

"After more than a century of strong cooperation in the use of the Red Cross trademark. ... we were very disappointed to find that the American Red Cross started a campaign to license the trademark to several businesses for commercial purposes," Johnson & Johnson said in a statement.

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.

They didn't start enforcing their trademark, they starting selling licenses of a trademark for which they didn't have permission to sell licenses. Again, from TFA:

Johnson & Johnson said it has had exclusive rights to use the trademark on certain commercial products -- including bandages and first-aid cream -- for more than 100 years.

It contends that the Red Cross is supposed to use the symbol only in connection with nonprofit relief services.

I suppose it should just come down to whatever (hopefully) written agreement Johnson & Johnson and the American Red Cross have.

Re:I understand...

[pcardno]

It already does - in the Bill Hicks routine that it came from.

"Thinkin' of John, Jackie.. Thinkin' of John..."

Re:Why now?

[leamanc]

According to this [cnn.com], they did raise the issue in 1895 and made an agreement then. The Red Cross has just recently violated said agreement.

Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J

[vtcodger]

***International treaty establishes the prior claim and trumps any later claim by J&J***

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.

Re:I understand...

[jerpyro]

They aren't natural, they're just non-toxic. We were using Method too for a while, but then I read that it wasn't actually any better than normal chemicals, it just wouldn't kill you.

Real hippies use Vinegar and Water ;) Stinks bad, but there's no residue and it isn't harmful at all to you nor the environment.

Re:I understand...

[Ogive17]

Shesh, rtfa. J&J has had a long standing agreement with the ARC to allow them to use the red cross. J&J's issue is ARC is now using that symbol to sell products.

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.

Re:I understand...

[griffjon]

So no more J&J brands:
        * 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!

Feh!

[Eli Gottlieb]

It's not like they can't fall back on the Red Star of David, Red Crescent or Red Crystal if they lose their right to the Red Cross.

Re:I understand...

[LordVader717]

Not the Red Cross logo, mind you, just crosses that are red - a symbol that's pretty universally understood to mean "medical aid here", and an important help in a confusing emergency situation.

And why do you think that the red cross is universally understood as "medical aid"? It's thanks to the International Red Cross.
If these people volunteered to join the red cross, there wouldn't have been anything wrong, but it undermines their reputation if any shitster can walk around that people would confuse him with the red cross.
I probably wouldn't confuse them either, but there's no strict line you can draw, which is why it's best not to use it.

Re:I understand...

[ehrichweiss]

I posted about this elsewhere already. The ARC isn't what you think it is. A chapter semi-local to me has absolutely no resources to help any of the people in its region because the ARC requires charter dues of around $25,000-$100,000 per year(in return you get to use their name to do fund raising much like the Ronald McDonald House) and this particular chapter only makes about $20,000 *total* over the dues, and that has to pay for any employees and resources to help those in need. You would think the ARC would see that the region is dirt poor and give them a break and maybe even give them some new resources to help out...but you'd be wrong. The people at the head of the ARC seem to only be interested in the Benjamins to the point that my friend who was the head of the local chapter just quit out of disgust. I hope J&J wins.

Re:I understand...

[forrestt]

About a year ago my eye doctor switched me from Acuvue to Biomedics 55. I've been wearing contact lenses for almost 25 years, and they are the most comfortable lenses I have ever worn. You may want to ask your doctor about them even if J&J drop the lawsuit.

It has many uses

[Discoflamingo13]

There's a gun club in my home town that uses it to "polish chrome" (wink wink, nudge nudge). That was the day I discovered (and could never un-discover) that you can buy K-Y Jelly (TM) in 5 gallon drums.

A Slight Confusion

[beadfulthings]

On the bright side, my fiance is a huge fan or organics and natural products, of which I do not think J&J make any. Apparently there is a brand called Method (we get ours at target.. and I hate target...) that has most household and personal cleaners that are all natural (or so my fiance tells me) to replace J&J products..

Be sure your're not confusing Johnson and Johnson with S.C. Johnson--they are two entirely different companies. S.C. Johnson makes the household cleaning products you're describing--floor wax, kitchen cleaners, window cleaners, plastic storage and trash bags, bug sprays, drain openers. They have a few personal care products such as shaving preparations, but mostly they are a household products company--and a very old one at that. Johnson & Johnson, the company involved in the lawsuit, manufactures personal care and pharmaceutical-type products, baby care stuff, contact lens juice, bandages and antiseptics, etc.

A boycott sounds like a good idea, but it would be a shame to boycott the wrong company

Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J

[Tassach]

[J&J] 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

And, if you had RTFA, that's just what J&J is suing ARC over -- the use of the Red Cross mark on exactly those medical devices for which it has the trademark. Sorry, but ARC is in the wrong here and are blatantly flouting their contractual agreements with J&J

Don't fall in to the trap of assuming that because J&J is a for-profit corporation it is automatically evil, and that because ARC is non-profit they are automatically as pure as the driven snow. As corporations go, J&J is far from the worst. And while the ARC does do a lot of good things, they have a lot of problems, too. While they like to tout that they "only" have 9% overhead, that conveniently ignores a lot of highly questionable "relief" expenditures (EG massive overpayments to preferred vendors). And when it comes to generating revenue and defending their turf, ARC is just as vicious and underhanded as any big for-profit corporation.

Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J

[Miltazar]

International Law isn't what is applicable here. This is United States law. JnJ have an trademark here in the United States on the Red Cross and, as others have pointed out here, licensed it to ARC for non-profit. It doesn't matter what the Geneva Convention said, its still not relevant in an US Trademark dispute. Not to mention if I remember correctly the Geneva Convention talks about a red cross on white, whereas this dispute is on a red cross in general. JnJ is in the right here, the ARC are sub-licensing out a trademark to competitors of JnJ despite agreeing not to use the trademark on any for-profit manner. Considering all the trademark disputes red cross has brought up about games and others using the red cross for innocent purposes this is their due payback. --milt

Re:I understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked at his journal where he noted when he got engaged and he called her a "her". I was informing him of his error in use of the language. His fiancee is a woman, he should use the correct term.

Why don't you calm down? I am not homophobic. I was making a joke in that I had confirmed he was a heterosexual and he had inadvertently proclaimed himself not to be because of an error in language. Any other silly personal attacks you want to launch against me?

Re:I understand...

[R2.0]

I call bullshit. The Red cross does not have, and never has had, anything to do with organ transplantation or donations. My guess is you got a call from some other organization and got confused.

They used to have a tissue donation division, but they spun it off a while ago and, to the best of my knowledge, didn't deal directly with individuals. We're talking skin and bone, not organs.

Re:Just change the name

[nelsonal]

Christians would have believed that the law was not subject to them (rather that a new more simple set of laws based on a relationship applied). It's complex, but essentially think of speeding in Virginia vs Montana a few years back. Virginia has a speedlimit of 55-60 on most roads. Exceeding this speed breaks the laws, however if a Virginia driver had vacationed in Montana they could have driven at any reasonable speed without breaking the law of either state. Since the law was fulfilled with Christ's death, the curse wouldn't apply (anymore than Virginia's speed limits) under the new law.

As mentioned in the other reply, stoning had the advantage that it is difficult to tell who struck the killing blow, and reinforced the concept that under the old law, sin had to be paid by shed blood. It wasn't meant to be cute nor sweet. Both Jews and Christians believe that God is not trite, safe, nor cute, but just and loving enough to offer grace to those who ask. Unfortunatly, His representatives have too frequently been too much of the first group, or simply just without the tempering of love and grace. Remember the strongest words Jesus had were for the religous leaders of the time, who were burdening the people with a littany of impossible rules (that only existed to show that pleasing God was impossible through human effort alone).