American Red Cross Sued For Using a Red Cross 739
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.
J&J might not want to push this (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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:Switzerland (Score:2, Interesting)
If you want to talk about a flag that contains a red cross on a white background then look at the Cross of St. George, which is the national flag of England (and thus part of the Union Flag), as well as its derivatives, including the national flags of Northern Ireland and Malta.
Red Cross' own fault? (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/11/canadian_red
J&J could just be launching a pre-emptive strike, I support the Red Cross' work but have absolutely no sympathy for them here, what goes around comes around I suppose, I'd argue they brought this upon themselves when trying to aggressively suggest they have the sole rights to the red cross symbol, something which as an Englishman, who's flag is a red cross I find rather offensive.
Maybe Switzerland should sue J&J (Score:4, Interesting)
Additionally, I'd wager that the PR agents at Johnson & Johnson won't be too happy about the damage control they will have to undertake for the next several years.
Some of those corporate lawyer types seem to be beyond outrageously stupid.
The case boils down to two questions, AFAIK (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Has J&J properly defended their trademark before? If the trademark is seen as having a universal meaning (like Kleenex or Xerox), then they can lose their right to it.
2) Does the ARC's previous use of the symbol in a relief charity context constitute use in the same general arena as J&J's medical supplies? After all, two companies not invovled the same market can often safely use a trademark without stepping on each other's legal rights. If not, then the ACR's century of use of the symbol is meaningless in considering whether their current use represents a violation for the new purposes they're putting it towards.
At any rate, J&J's lawyers have to have a feeling that they've got a good chance of winning or else they wouldn't even try. There's no company advantage to going head to head against one of the world's most recognized humanitarian aid charities (and almost certainly a good customer of J&J's) unless they're sure they can win.
Let the Swiss sue J&J (Score:4, Interesting)
... after all, the swiss flag is the same, except that the colors are inverted. An "obvious attempt to hide a blatant ripoff of Swiss cultural heritage".
Johnson and Johnson are just being dickheads [trolltalk.com].
On a more serious note - they don't have a case. The International Red Cross created the symbol in 1863, and it was recognized by the First Geneva Convention in 1864 [icrc.org]
International treaty establishes the prior claim and trumps any later claim by J&J.
"Saint"? Oh please. (Score:4, Interesting)
hard-to-win-a-pissing-match-with-a-saint dept
Maybe J&J's backlash is because they're disgusted at how commercial and "profit" the Red Cross has become.
The Red Cross is no saint. If they were, they wouldn't be charging insane amounts of money for *donated* blood (which has an astoundingly poor rate of screening for HIV and other communicable diseases), refusing donations of material (Red Cross only accepts money) for disasters, and using any disaster as an excuse for a recruitment drive, even when they're not really needed.
In the months after September 11th, the ads were almost non-stop. Almost two billion dollars flowed in. Do you really think September 11th victims needed places to sleep, clothing, etc? And do you realize how much clothing and basic human needs $2BN takes care of?
And guess how much they did in Louisiana? Next to nothing, just like the feds...http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july- dec05/redcross_12-14.html
Basic problems, like not training their volunteers. I wonder where the money goes?
Re:Classic case of trade mark infringment. (Score:3, Interesting)
The ARC could easily argue that J&J's trademark has become genericized, and if J&J continues to pursue the case, the ARC may be forced to do that. I don't think the ARC wants to have to do that, though, because the ICRC has at times been involved in trying to protect its own reserved use of the red cross symbol. I really don't see this case going to trial, because both sides have something to lose no matter what the outcome is.
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.
Re:"Saint"? Oh please. (Score:5, Interesting)
Cheers!
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.
Write (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Re:I understand... (Score:3, Interesting)
Neocons:
They are all republicans until their republican ideals get in the way of their lust for power or money.
They are all xians until their xain ideals get in the way of their lust for power or money.
We need to find a Voodoo witch doctor and Nixon's corpse.
Re:Classic case of trade mark infringment. (Score:5, Interesting)
Jolyon
Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Leave it to kdawson to put on the spin (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"Saint"? Oh please. (Score:4, Interesting)
In my hometown, there was such a backlash in the medical community about the outrageous prices that the Red Cross charged for blood, and the fact that they'd randomly shuffle blood products around the country, that someone opened a community-based donation center. It's become the de-facto blood source for that city. Donate blood and a local recipient gets it. Get blood and know that it came from your neighbor. All this at a fraction of the price that the Red Cross charged.
Others seem to be able to do it for less, so I don't really buy that argument.
Re:I understand... (Score:3, Interesting)
They claim that they don't want people to think that activist medics are representing the Red Cross, but somehow I don't think anyone would confuse those folks in the WP photo for Red Cross employees...
Red Cross is licensing the symbol... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I understand... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I understand... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I understand... (Score:3, Interesting)
After all, it's a little non-profit that helps poor sick people against a big heartless corporation that only cares about profits and has helped increase the cost of healthcare and insurance. Hell, if they can tie the ARC to helping innocent civilians in Iraq and J&J to Haliburton, it will become an issue in the next Democratic debate.
Re:I understand... (Score:4, Interesting)
That sounds closer to compensation levels at a "big heartless corporation" than for "a little non-profit".
Re:I understand... (Score:4, Interesting)
My dad had a small red cross in a button, overlaid with text, on his (small) company website that linked to his "First Aid" section. The Canadian Red Cross sent him a cease and desist letter and threatened to have lawyers shut him down... (yes, he's in Canada!)
I understand protecting a copyright, but it's not like my dad was using the "red cross" as or in his company logo or something. They should waste less time on that kind of crap and spend more time helping people.
Anyways, I changed it to a green cross and they can go suck a fat one.
Re:I understand... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I understand... (Score:3, Interesting)
Here in the UK, you practically never see a Red cross used anywhere outside of the British Red Cross society and the various military medical services. The Red Cross don't even have to go to the expense of enforcing this, since the government do it for them via (I believe) an office in the Ministry of Defence. We don't have Red Crosses on first aid kits (they are all green and white), ambulances (other than military and the voluntary Red Cross ones), signs for hospitals etc.
A remember a political dust up many years ago when the ruling labour party (who I think were in opposition at the time) printed a campaign leaflet about health with a Red Cross on the cover. The other parties jumped on this with glee and they had to stop distributing the leaflets.*
Clearly, there are some sensible exceptions to this otherwise total ban. You can buy models of military ambulances with red crosses on them, and clearly there is some sort of exception for people making films and TV programmes.
*Although I remember this event distinctly, I can't find any links to reports about it (it was more than 10 years ago). If anyone can find such a link I would be most grateful.
Re:I understand... (Score:3, Interesting)
BUT, how about we talk about morally right and wrong, or perhaps plain old fashioned good versus evil. Oh what am I thinking, neither of those concepts have any place in good old corporate greed now do they?
Sure, you can argue J&J have every right and in fact are required to defend their trademark, but going after an organization like the ARC who has done much good in the world is just plain sickening. There are alot better ways of dealing with this then going straight for the throat.
Re:I understand... (Score:4, Interesting)
Except, how can a corporation trademark a symbol that's already in use by a non-profit, and has been in use for 23 years before said corporation was even founded? You know they had to have picked that symbol just because there were charities in Europe already using it.
As for dating the symbol, as you point out, it was in use well before the Red Cross came into existence and claimed the trademark, including national flags. So the Red Cross probably shouldn't have any claim to the symbol either, yet it is sending legal letters to commercial entities saying to stop using it, AND is producing commercial products using it.
Except... the Red Cross is who was originally using it. They renamed themselves the International Committee of the Red Cross after a few decades when they were officially reorganized and recognized by the Geneva Convention, but they were doing work and using the symbol long before then.
Not only that, their symbol is protected by international law, so they have every right -- some would say duty -- to stop people from using it inappropriately.
Not only THAT, but the only thing I've ever seen the Red Cross sell -- and only on redcross.org -- is stuff like First Aid kits and emergency kits for your car -- things that you would think that the Red Cross would be quite happy to sell for fundraising. It's not like they don't have a surplus. The way the J&J guys are making it sound you can just walk up to any Walmart and buy a box of "Red Cross brand Bandaids". That's not the case at all.
Non profits and charities CAN sell things. Just because you're not in it for the money doesn't mean money isn't useful.
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Red Cross has its own agenda and doesn't care about people's requests or wishes. So it doesn't surprise me it's violating its agreements with Johnson & Johnson. The Red Cross thinks it can do whatever it wants because it's a charitable organization. If you read the article, J&J is right in this issue, and I hope the company prevails in what is a clear trademark violation.
Re:I understand... (Score:3, Interesting)
That is nothing short of disgusting.
Yes, to run that size of a charitable organization efficiently, you need someone very good at what they do, arguably better than most doing the same for commercial entities. However, that right person for the job is only right if they are also charitable in the work they do...for starters not taking a disgustingly large salary.
Quick example: Scouts Canada (Yes, I'm Canadian) ~ 15 years ago or so decided to start paying themselves (top members of the organization that is, regional managers etc) "fair market value". Just about every low wage part timer involved was out of a job in very short order. It became either top rank with competitive pay, or pure volunteer. Money stopped trickling down to the local troops. Regional camps started closing as user fees skyrocketed. Scouts Canada is now 15 years later an empty hollow shell of it's former self. It's a total joke really.
What's my point?
Don't get involved with non profits if you personally expect to make a profit.
Or rather, if you are a non profit charitable organization, do NOT hire people that expect to make large sums of money. Just Don't Do It. The people you will end up enticing into those jobs simply do not give a shit about the organization at that point...they're there for the compensation and nothing more.
An ideal head of the ARC would be extremely capable in their field, possibly previously made very large salaries at commercial enterprises in the past, but is altruistic enough to simply want a reasonable salary knowing that anything more would be directly damaging the non profit they are there to run in the first place.
I'd consider it a moral conflict of interest to hold that kind of position for a non profit and accept that kind of compensation.
Sickening.
Re:Hey moron! (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't they both have a training regimen that involves beating you with a stick?... Coincidence? I think not.
Re:Just change the name (Score:3, Interesting)
Deut. 21:23 "Cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree"--which is why Israelites stoned people.
Psalm 22 "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint"... "they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me."
Zachariah 12:10 "and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him"
Psalm 34:20 "He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken."
Re:Just change the name (Score:3, Interesting)
Part of the reason is that the Greek alphabet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_alphabet [wikipedia.org] letter "Chi" is represented by the symbol "X" and was the first letter in the Greek spelling of "Christ" (chi, rho, iota, sigma tau). It is also the basis for the Roman cross http://www.canterburypewter.com/mailers/chirho.ht