Johnson & Johnson sues Red Cross

[Superflyer]

"Johnson & Johnson, the health-products giant that uses a red cross as its trademark, sued the American Red Cross on Wednesday, demanding that the charity halt the use of the red cross symbol on products it sells to the public."

This is crazy, sure they are going to use the symbol on their merchendise but this is the Red Cross and anything that they raise is going to help people in need. Then this huge company comes in and tries to sue them. Nuts.
Sure they have the right but WTF are they going to gain out of it besides bad press. There is no way J&J can come out looking like anything other then Jerks.

Link

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

This is crazy, sure they are going to use the symbol on their merchendise but this is the Red Cross and anything that they raise is going to help people in need.

I read this differently. J&J was fine with the Red Cross using their registered trademark for aid and relief, but now the Red Cross wants to use it to compete on a business level with J&J.

"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.

Edit- also it appears that J&J tried to settle this dispute without a lawsuit, but the Red Cross declined.

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

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I read this differently. J&J was fine with the Red Cross using their registered trademark for aid and relief, but now the Red Cross wants to use it tom compete on a business level with J&J.

"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.

Edit- also it appears that J&J tried to settle this dispute without a lawsuit, but the Red Cross declined.

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

It all depends on the nature and purpose of the businesses. What is Red Cross going to do with the profits? Buy porsches for their executives, or roll it back into their charitable contributions?

[ken0042]

^^ I have no doubt that the Red Cross will be doing good work with the money they get. And likely J&J wouldn't have an issue with the Red Cross doing stuff like selling products to raise money.

However the Red Cross in this case is licensing the trademark to a 3rd company so that 3rd company can profit from using J&J's trademark. And it's that 3rd company that will be buying the proverbial Porches.

[mykalberta]

Stgrange, the Red Cross was founded in 1863 and JnJ founded 1886.

Its a completely legit lawsuit if the products will infringe no matter the outward appearance of the Red Cross itself. Strange thought, I dont recall any JnJ products marketed with the Red Cross logo.

Unless JnJ can prove they trademarked the redcross prior to 1915 (earliest pic I can find of a red cross) then they are screwed.

It seems strange that the Red Cross wouldnt have the symbol trademarked for whatever it wanted, the organization was founded in 1863 with the Red Cross symbol being recognized in 1864 (not necessarily for that organization alone though).

Will be an interesting court case. I would assume JnJ would have to have legal merit cause the backlash from this is going to be harsh which is likely what the American RC thought and why they wouldnt settle.

MYK

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

It seems strange that the Red Cross wouldnt have the symbol trademarked for whatever it wanted, the organization was founded in 1863 with the Red Cross symbol being recognized in 1864 (not necessarily for that organization alone though).

I found this odd as well. I did a quick search at Wikipedia, and it says:

In order to ensure universal respect for the emblem, the Geneva Conventions obliged their signatories to forbid any other use of the name and emblem in wartime and peacetime.

I also remember that Childs Play was asked to not use a red cross on a white background by the Red Cross, as it was an international symbol and unauthorized use was covered under international law. It seems to me it's J&J who shouldn't be using the symbol, but I'm unsure of any other laws that might throw a wrench into things.

[Bobblehead]

Well, if a business doesn't defend a trademark then it can be ruled to be public domain, but since there has already been an agreement in effect I don't think that would come into play.

[Hemi-Cuda]

so are they going to sue Switzerland next?

[Agamemnon]

The Swiss flag is a white cross on a red background... not quite the same.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I read this differently. J&J was fine with the Red Cross using their registered trademark for aid and relief, but now the Red Cross wants to use it to compete on a business level with J&J.

"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.

Edit- also it appears that J&J tried to settle this dispute without a lawsuit, but the Red Cross declined.

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

I'm glad you brought this up because this is a better representation of the situation. I know they have been getting into medical training manauls for quite some time now, often published by third parties, and putting their name and endorsement on them.

I know from personal experience that the Red Cross is vicious in their defense of the Red Cross symbol and the prosecution of people who infringe on it. I publish a medical magazine, and I've seen some pretty heavy-handed stuff by the Red Cross over the years. In one case a guy was working as a medical clown, on a volunteer basis, going into hospitals and such to work with kids. He happened to have an orange cross on his clown suit. After I ran a feature story on him, the Red Cross came down on him big time and made him remove the orange cross from his clown suit. It wasn't a polite request either ... it was in the form of a harsh letter threatening litigation.

The Red Cross's rationale for closely guarding the use of the red cross symbol is to prevent if from becoming so commonly used that it detracts from the Red Cross's ability to be visible and readily identifiable at disaster scenes. This is very valid rationale too. But when they start getting into dilution of the brand identity by lending it to third parties themselves they're being rather hypocritical, especially when they've been rather heavy handed in their dealings with infringers themselves.

I guess the ultimate question is who registered the symbol first. If J&J feels they have basis for a lawsuit they must have something they feel gives them first claim to the symbol.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

The Swiss flag is a white cross on a red background... not quite the same.

From the Wiki article on International Red Cross:

It is, in terms of its color, a reversal of the Swiss national flag, a meaning which was adopted to honor Swiss founder Henry Dunant and his home country

[Hack&Lube]

I think these guys should get the royalties

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I think these guys should get the royalties

Didn't the Vatican use all those guys for fire wood back on Friday, Oct. 13th, 1307?

[Dirty Mr. Clean]

I think a red cross should be part of public domain. It has been used for centuries by mainly Christian orginizations and now a company thinks they own is crap.