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.
I understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I understand... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Funny)
Just change the name (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just change the name (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:I understand... (Score:4, Informative)
Real hippies use Vinegar and Water
Though I don't have a death-wish. (Score:4, Funny)
Personally, that seems "better" to me.
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!
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome (Score:5, Funny)
Signed,
Dr. Jonathan Cody
Yukon Pine Bark, LLC
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It has many uses (Score:4, Funny)
If you ever do find out a way to un-discover that, would you let me know?
A Slight Confusion (Score:5, Informative)
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:I understand... (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason they can do it is not because they have a tenable legal position, but because they know that if they go to trial, most people will have the same knee-jerk reaction you had, and thus they can get away with it.
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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
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.
You are missing the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Red Cross is internationally recognized as a neutral body. Specifically if it's marked with a red cross on a white background, attacking, defacing, or generally being a dick to it is an international war crime.
This HAS to be protected. Period. There is no discussion on this matter -- the sanctity of the Red Cross / Crystal / Crescent is beyond paramount. These red cross workers have to be recognized internationally as neutral civilian aid workers, and any dilution of that isn't just sick and wrong, it's against international law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross [wikipedia.org]
More specifically, the first Geneva Convention is the one that founded the Red Cross and defined it's emblem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Geneva_Convent
J&J is going up against the Geneva Convention and International law. They are is not going to win this.
Re:You are missing the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
You were going great up until the end. It's the American Red Cross thats going agaisnt this by licensing (for profit) the red cross symbol. IMHO, J&J is actually in the right here. They have the exclusive (basically grandfathered) right to use the red cross on commercial products.
Its the ARC that is diluting the value of the symbol to make money.
Re:You are missing the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
When I first read this, I was very much thinking "Burn J&J, BURN". But the more I read up on it...J&J certainly shouldn't end up profiting from this by any means, and shouldn't be able to stop the ARC from using the symbol, HOWEVER, I'm really starting to think the ARC needs to smarten the hell up for the exact reasons you specify above.
ARC are most certainly diluting their own symbol, J&J is just using that mistake as leverage for their own potential personal gains.
Two wrongs don't make a right...hope the courts won't alter that math.
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.....
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:5, Insightful)
"One of the things that struck us in relation to the video games industry is that while certain products that are out there, first aid kits and so on, that's certainly a problem--and our philosophy is that there's no emblem abuse that's too small to report, because you have to try to get them all" (full piece http://www.shacknews.com/extras/2006/020906_redcr
So within that context it sounds like the Red Cross would consider J&J a legitimate target in the future.
And J&J, even within your take, has every right to be pissed. The Red Cross is a non-profit organization, it should not be giving out permission to use a symbol that is trademarked for commercial use by another organization.
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.
J&J might be being asshats here, but the Red Cross is building up plenty of bad karma too and started the cross trademark fight. Doing good works does not give them a illy white get out of jail free card to be jerks themselves.
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, Informative)
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:4, Insightful)
All that said, there are a few unfortunate things that occurred
1) Even though your father never apparently signed an organ donors card, the medical staff still wanted his heart. Ethically, in the absence of a clear written agreement by the deceased, the staff are supposed to assume that he did NOT agree. The fact that they still pursued this suggest either they already knew there was a match with a waiting recipient (Something they normally can't determine until the heart has been removed) or they were guilty of far more wishful thinking then I am comfortable with in a medical organization. ("Maybe he was willing to donate, mentioned this to his family but never got around to filling out the card and maybe when we remove the heart it will turn out we can use it.")
2)The pushiness of the first Red Cross agent, while somewhat understandable when there are lives on the line, is still unacceptable when dealing with a family in grief. Graphic descriptions are utterly unacceptable and inexcusable in those circumstances.
3)There should be only one agent handling each transplant case and that agent needs to be far better trained in grief counseling. Bottom line, they are asking for a very personal kind of donation from a family that is at it's most vulnerable.
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was never open to anyone treating it like an Oklahoma land grab.
This would be an interesting case of "is nothing sacred?" being an appropriate quip.
Is J&J going to go after the US Army next? What about the rest of the planet that has been using a red cross as a medical & neutrality symbol for more than 50 years.
This boat already sailed. This boat already sailed before any of our parents were even born.
This would be one of those few occasions where Shrub's all
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.
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"...
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.
Re: (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:I understand... (Score:4, Funny)
Then they become democrats?
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Thinkin' of John, Jackie.. Thinkin' of John..."
Re:I understand... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I understand... (Score:4, Funny)
A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fuckin' cross? It's kind of like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on."
Re:I understand... (Score:4, Funny)
Moishe, get the nails! He's loose again!
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.
Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
ob (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re:Classic case of trade mark infringment. (Score:5, Interesting)
Jolyon
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.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Their First Aid products uses the cross, you can find it on their Band-Aid [band-aid.com] site.
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.
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.
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.
Switzerland (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Switzerland (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Switzerland (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Bad Strategy (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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.
"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:"Saint"? Oh please. (Score:5, Interesting)
Cheers!
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:"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.
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?
RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Red Cross is older than the article states. (Score:3, Informative)
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: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.
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?
Re:J&J might not want to push this (Score:5, Insightful)
If they both lose, we all win.
Leave it to kdawson to put on the spin (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Re:Nice one big pharma (Score:4, Insightful)
Though suing the ARC is a pretty stupid idea, (look at the hate(~mail) messages, it's already generated here on slashdot.)
Re:Hey moron! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey moron! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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