Slashdot Mirror
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.
You have to defend your trademark or lose it. But, come on this is a dog and pony show they WANT to people to look at J&J products and think "oh! the red cross!"
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
I mean, trademarks & logos disputes revolve around recognition right? I'd say even a moron in hurry would think this American RRed Cross first aid bag was a J&J product right?
(humour)
Leave it to big pharma to release the legal hounds. I guess the profit margins must be getting pretty slim for them to start harassing the ARC. Most likely they don't want anyone to think they are handing out relief supplies to people suffering from disasters... think what that would do to investor confidence.... handing out stuff for free!?? Horrors.... No, no, no! Handouts bad! Profit good!
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
When would the red cross want to pass off as a bloated pharma/consumer tat company? I can't see J&J demonstating damages or the potential for damages.
Prior heart. As in Lion, Richard the.
At the bottom of the
Actually, I'm not sure if it matters if they push this or not. The red cross symbol has become synonymous with 'First Aid' in the public mind. Like it or not, they might lose this suit against a company that just started 3 days ago, let alone the Red Cross.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
On the other hand, can the Catholic Church sue J&J for trademark violation of the "cross"?
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. 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.
I wank in the shower.
Does the Red Cross symbol even meet the standard for originality? It's been used for a long time by military organizations to denote an on-battlefield hospital, and international treaty prevents the attacking of anything near a white flag with a red cross on it.
I think if they really go to court over it, J+J might stand a chance of losing that trademark, IMHO.
But IANAL.
My blog
Great, now Switzerland will get involved and claim that the red cross is obviously a derivative work of their flag...
Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
Can't you just see it... in the corporate offices of Johnson and Johnson:
Billy-bob and Goober are rocking back and forth in their executive chairs seething in rage about the %@^!* Red Cross much as their father and grandfather did.
Then suddenly, a tornado hits Kansas and you see news reports with the American Red Cross helping people
Goober Johnson suddenly snaps and yells "those BASTARDS. We will SUE you for using that symbol"
I realise that it's a valid trademark protection, and so required by trademark rules/laws in order for J&J to keep that mark but...wow.
Suing a charity seems like a ridiculous, albeit efficient, way to garner negative publicity and shoot oneself in the foot in terms of reducing positive mind-share in the general public (assuming that the general public are made aware of this through the news outlets, of course).
An easier resolution would surely have been a no-cost license to/for charitable concerns, thereby reducing costs (of law-suits), reducing negative publicity (suing a charity) and enforcing patent-protection (or whatever, since it's licensed to the third party, not being used without permission).
Of course all of this sort of requires that the red cross mark in question is near-enough identical to confuse a moron in a hurry, or whatever the correct term is...
Ah, legally-minded businesses, first the RIAA and MPAA and now this...
They didn't have the right to do that and that's why this is a case.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
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
In other news, Radio Shack plans to sue all companies that put a circle-R after their name. "Their trademark symbol is exploiting our trademark symbol" said aggrieved lawyers for the retailer.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
This seems like a sticky issue:
J&J may have a ~right~ to do this, but it seems like it might not be the smartest thing to do (PR-wise).
On the other hand, if they don't take action to protect their trademark, they may face the prospect of loosing it.
I think the important take-away here is that our Intellectual Property laws are really messed up. The Red cross (chartered or not) has been using that symbol long before J&J), so it seems kind of broken that J&J gets to tell the Red cross what they can do with it just because they weren't on the ball enough to have registered it first.
Oblig. Underpants Gnome Meme Reference:
1) Find a company with a successful product that has failed to get a trademark on it
2) Register it yourself, then sue them
3) PROFIT!!!
The Digital Sorceress
Obviously this isn't going to happen-- the "cross" is too widely distributed for anyone to claim a trademark on it-- regardless of color. Also-- hasn't the "red cross" always been a symbol for medical aid, ie) in warfare?
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
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
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 - 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.
J&J is suing catholic church for use of the cross and demands that it be removed from all the church buildings. When asked about the validity of their claim, J&J spokesperson replied that they feel that since the time is relative, they have as much right to the simbol as the church.
Just to put a different perspective on things:
_ cross_v.html
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.
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.
So they want their cross? fine, just use any of the available alternative symbols!
I would love to see how the fanatic catholic population of the USA react after getting help from the Red Crescent .
In all seriously... it does shows you to what extent corporations have no "soul" or common sense... shees guys it is the red cross.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
When asked to respond to J&J's lawsuit Satan replied, "dayum!"
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
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.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Not being up to snuff on trademark law, as far as I know, there are two important questions to determining the merits of this case.
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.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
... 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.
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
International treaty establishes the prior claim and trumps any later claim by J&J.
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?
Please help metamoderate.
I'm going to trademark the periond. /. will just become /
next thing you know people will have a patent on things like using a shopping cart online, which would really screw over online retailers. If a non artistically inclined four year old can make it with a box of crayons, it should be public domain...
An I.T. motto in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing...
If I was J&J, I would license the red cross to the red cross for some paltry amount, $1, and then write off the rest of my license fee as a charitable contribution.
In God we trust, all others require data.
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.
Oh my. Look- they've been abusing our trademark for over a century. Hey- that's unfair! The bastards! There is only so much abuse we can take! This abuse has got to stop NOW! SUE THEM!
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
In hoc signo vinces.
I thought that the Red Cross was protected under international law and couldn't be used for non-humaitarian purposes.
Oh wait, this is in America, where international law doesn't apply. Sorry.
They are suing the red cross because the red crossis now illegally liscencing the red cross symbol when J&J have had the symbol since they started in the 1800's and they have it trademarked.
J&J actually has a case against the red cross. Stop with this big corp business.
For all my life, I've noted that on J&J products that used the red cross logo, there was also a very explicit statement that the symbol did not indicate any connection with ARC. Corporations don't put such disclaimers on their packaging for fun -- there must have been some legal decision in the past that demanded it.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Everyone with the last name Johnson
A while back for using the Red Cross on med packs? I don't have time to search for the story, but if I recall correctly they were going after a couple of companies that make FPS games a couple of years ago for that...
(yay -- i forgot my username and password!)
Lawyers never cease to amaze me.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
"Central 911, what's your emergency?"
"Yeah, here's Mrs. Smith, secretary at Johnson&Johnson, our CEO had a heart attack!"
"Sorry, wrong number" *click*
Or, more likely, at the hospital...
"Yeah, here he is, rush him to the ER."
"Slow down, first of all, fill out this form, then this one, then that one, and then give me a moment to check for his credit rating. After all, we don't want to make a terrible, costy mistake, do we? You there! Stop right now, he's not going anywhere 'til the bureaucrats got what they want!"
It might be a bad idea to piss off people who could be of good use when you really, really need them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's fascinating how such incredibly bad decisions get made. Maybe they've hired Donald Rumsfeld as an advisor?
There's no such thing as bad publicity. Right?
We need patent reform in this country. NOW
Just because an organization is "non-profit" doesn't mean that it always operates charitably. As with any organization, whether it be commercial, charitable or governmental, its primary goal as an organization is to become a bigger and to have more money pass through its hands. Blue Cross is a perfect example... if you worked at Blue Cross or a private insurer, you'd notice very little difference in the way they operate.
ARC is free to use the logo the same as it always has, but selling licenses to use it is pretty cheeky. I'm sure that ARC enforces their own trademarks just as fervently as JNJ does.
Public domain and copyright have nothing whatsoever to do with this, anonymous twit.
This is about trademarks.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Change to the Red Crescent world wide. Allah ackbar.
Johnson and Johnson a Family Company! Thats all I had say.
This news story seems to be off-topic from the stated mission of this site.
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?
Thank You NPR... J&J lisenced the Red cross *from* the ARC, and has a contract to use the red cross symbol. They are alleging that by the ARC lisencing the symbol to other for-profit companies it is watering down their trademark.
I'd really like to see all of the technical arguments, and maybe read the original agreement
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
The Red Cross is an internationally recognized symbol that means medical help. It goes beyond marketing and language for most people on the planet.
This is a can of worms that J&J should have ignored and left unopened.
Wow, reading the posts so far seems to indicate that most people did not RTFA. This is not a simple trademark dispute. J&J and ARC had an agreement going back to the 1880's that seems to stipulate that J&J would have sole use of the red cross symbol for marketing commercial medical products (a business the ARC was not and did not intend to be in). The problem now is that the ARC is marketing products in stores, using the red cross symbol, that compete with J&J products. J&J sees this as a violation of the long-standing agreement between the two organizations even knowing that the profits feed back into the charity. At least this is my understanding of this situation.
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.
You ain't never gonna win the PR battle on this one and, in fact, you're going to come out smelling like a 6-week dead sea lion washed up on the beach. Don't you guys have other guys that tell you this kind of stuff?
I took a gander at a bunch of Johnson & Johnson products and the only ones I could find the "Red Cross" on was for a few of their first-aid kits/supplies and they still have their "Johnson & Johnson" branding and logo along with it. Weak lawsuit.
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.
if you can't beat them, join them
in other words, it's about time slashdot.org start suing the ENTIRE internet community for it's unfair and outrageous use of slashes (aka "/") and dots (aka ".") without a proper legal contract and licensure
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
After all it is a family company...
Fidelity Investments is suing the Bureau of Printing and Engraving over its use of Fidelity's distinctive "pyramid-and-eye" motif on the dollar bill...
...and Subaru wants NASA to rearrange the Pleiades.
Prudential Financial is demanding that the U. K, owners of the Rock of Gibraltar,remove it, reshape it, or paint Prudential's name on it...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
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
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...
I'm awake! The answer is BONK!
a flagrant flag rant.
Think global, act loco
Check out my post above here. Before people start jumping to the defense of the Red Cross, they should have a better idea of what exactly the organization is REALLY about.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Why would you post a comment if you don't even know the difference between a copyright and trademark? Shut up and learn from those who do!
http://outcampaign.org/
I'm writing Johnson and Johnson a nasty letter! I understand the trademark crap and all, but give me a break. The Red Cross is a charitable and helpful organization. They are hurting people by taking funds away from the Red Cross. They are hurting their own consumers!
I think this one is simple !!!!
Simply boycott J&J and subsidiary companies
AS for those who have trashed the Red Cross... Unless they have run a charitable organisation, I suggest they go and do a bit of reading.
They are not easy to run, there are lots of issues they hve to deal with. They make mistakes but they make the world a much better place. J&J just made it a worse one !
As someone who grew up in a military family (going several generations back), I have nothing but disdain for the Red Cross. They sell themselves as some noble organization helping out the military and disaster victims, but they are more oriented towards making money. When the time comes to actually devliver, they are nowhere to be found (or they're charging for it). People donate blood to them not realizing that they are selling it to hospitals at market value. People give money to them to help disaster victims, not realizing that they put all donations into their general fund, NOT into funds for specific disasters (they made a FORTUNE off of 9-11 and very little, if any, of that money went to 9-11 victims or recovery).
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.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I also just wanted to add this so someone might mod this closer to the top. People who give to the Red Cross should see this thread.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
because that would prevent them from licensing out use of the mark to private companies (which is what J&J is objecting to).
I had a neutral view of this company, now the only thing I can associate them with is as the company that sued the Red Cross for an inane trademark issue (so what if they lose the use of it? There is a point where frankly you have to let common sense take hold frankly, if anything this company should chose a different symbol for its trademark and quietely stop using the red cross....)
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The meaning of a red cross is 'do not shoot' in war time, according to the Geneva convention, which the US signed. Therefore no red cross is allowed to be used for anything else, even a civil first aid kit.(A green cross should be used to mark such) Eventually the red crystal symbol will replace the existing red cross, red crescent, red star of David and red lion with sun symbols. Particularly in a war with muslims on one side and christians on another, the free of religious connotation red crystal symbol is a win to humanity. The new symbol was adopted to the Geneva convention last December.
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
jleebaw@corus.jnj.com
Copyright Business Wire 2007
You do know that the Red Cross symbol is derived from the Swiss flag, don't you?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Since when did J&J suing the Red Cross become A) "News for Nerds"... I don't see how this is related to technology or nerdy stuff at all and B) Have anything to do with "Your rights Online". I used to enjoy reading this site because it was actually technology and geek related...
There is no place for charitable organisations in the USA any longer, in effect they undermine the market by providing - for free - services which could be provided by the market at a price which it would bear.
It's pretty obvious that the Red Cross is an immense unscrutinised organisation which is frequently shown to be wasting money through inefficiency and bad planning which could, and should, be there for those who need it. Opening up this sector to competition would allow fully transparent corporations to move in and drive down inefficiences and costs through the marvel of competition.
I honestly can't understand what place charity plays in our society any longer, it's redundant and simply acts as a prop to the crippled, the workshy and other unproductive elements of society which, to be honest, we could well do without anyway.
to sue a charitable organization over a logo.
Come on, I never even noticed the 2 organizations had the same logo.
Who's next, the blue cross in Blue Cross Blue Shield?
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
Just pathetic, not only watning to get money from a mark, but a simple mark as a cross in color.
If I was the vatican I would sue them for using a cross!
After that the prostetants and other christian religions who DARE to use cross as a simbol!
Then the romans would sue the catholics!
More likely than not, J&J is going to lose this one and lose it bad. Not only is the red cross symbol not associated with J&J in the public mind - it's associated with the Red Cross in the public mind; a very important factor - but it's also dealing with an organization that has been using it for over 100 years and doing so without license from J&J (at least according to the article).
Some in the discussions here on
About the only thing that could really make J&J win would be if they had a contract with ARC pertaining to ARC's use of the red cross mark. If so, then they could win. If not, they will likely lose it with either (a) ARC gaining the mark, and J&J having to license it from ARC, (b) the mark becoming public domain, or (c) ARC and J&J being granted joint ownership of the mark.
'c' would be similar to what Prison Fellowship Ministries and Salvation Army have worked out with respect to the mark "Angel Tree" mark that both use for Christmas time events. They have an agreement (contract/license/etc.) between them stating who owns it and granting each the right to use it. Why? Because Prison Fellowship registered it (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state
Any how...IANAL but that's my prediction. Not good for J&J though.
Also, for those claiming that ARC's use of the mark was based on Switzerland's flag and that The Red Cross is based in Switzerland...Check out these Wikipedia articles: ARC and the International. The article on J&J might also be of interest - as the ARC and J&J articles put ARC being founded 5 years before J&J - something that would also be very important and would cause J&J to lose.
The articles put first use by a RC agent in 1864, along with the Geneva Convention that founded the group that became the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which ARC is essentially the US arm of. Also see per the red cross symbol.
It really does not look good for J&J - because a lot of that predates J&J quite a bit.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
i heard the French army tried to trademark a white flag, with nothing on it - and patent the notion of waving it furiously
I'm still wondering where all of those 9/11 donations went...
The Red Cross is a scam.
The "saint" comment isn't a reference to Johnson & Johnson, but to Saint George whose symbol is also a red cross and is one of the national symbols of England (and one of the 3 components that make up the Union Flag of the United Kingdom: the red-on-white cross of Saint George, the white-on-blue saltire (diagonal) cross of Saint Andrew (Scotland), and the red-on-white saltire cross of Saint Patrick (Ireland--may have been created just to fit in the Union Flag or to parallel the English and Scottish symbols as strickly speaking Saint Patrick didn't have a cross symbol becasue he wasn't a martyr)). If you ever see English sports teams competing as England rather than as part of the UK, they'll use the red-on-white cross flag.
Note, however, that the English flag has different dimensions than the Red Cross flag. In the flag of Saint George the cross goes to the edges of the flag/symbol, where the cross in the Red Cross flag does not being based on an inversion of the Swiss flag (white-on-red cross).
This is one corporation that needs a smack down. They might have every legal right, but no moral right to do this. How a youtube/digg/slashdot campaign to make the idiots thing this one through?
"My break dancing days are over, but there's always the Funky Chicken" --The Full Monty
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.
Personally, I think it's rough justice myself, after the as the symbol for his product.
The "moon" symbol on J&J products _is_ the mark of Satan?
I take it the lawyers have a lot more pull at J&J than PR and Marketing.
Looks like a "grab the popcorn" moment because the backpedaling should be amusing.
Look, there is a reason why the rest of the world does not like many things coming from the US, one of them is the monetization and commercialization of everything. Maybe the US Red Cross behaves like that, but in other countries that is not the case. SOmething you fail to see as well is that in a conflict zone they are not there to support your military, they are there to support the injured, whatever their nationality.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Personally, I think it's rough justice myself, after the New Zealand Red Cross insisted that an orange juice vendor stop using an orange cross as the symbol for his product.
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?
The red cross is not an ordinary trademark symbol. Usage of the red cross emblem is governed under the first and second Geneva Conventions.
If I am reading it right, a red cross may have one of two distinct meanings. It may either be used as a sign that a person/building/ship is protected by the Geneva Conventions, or may be used as a logo by the Red Cross. Any other use is forbidden.
Also, there is the reason that trademark laws were created, for consumer protection. Trademarks exists so that when a consumer sees a trademark, they will associate the product they see it on with whatever organization they associate the trademark with. In the case of a red cross, the vast majority of Americans associate it with the International Red Cross, not Johnson & Johnson. Use of a red cross by Johnson & Johnson would likely confuse people into thinking the product was connected with the Red Cross, while usage by the Red Cross would not mislead people into thinking it connected with Johnson & Johnson. Because most consumers would associate the red cross this way, Johnson & Johnson's use of the trademark is what would deceive consumers, completely defeating the point of trademark law.
Follow the link on the pp.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Problem solved. The conservative right will love that.
There are a couple of places that mention it:s -enforces-trademark.html1 /30/ARE-YOU-USING-THE-RED-CROSS-SYMBOL-IN-YOUR-GAM ES
w ww.davis.ca/community/blogs/video_games/files/red_ cross_letter.pdf
0 19
http://www.patentarcade.com/2006/02/news-red-cros
http://www.davis.ca/en/blog/Video-Game-Law/2006/0
Here's an internet archive of the letter mentioned in the blogs in pdf format: http://web.archive.org/web/20060206213819/http://
I have also found the link for the Red Cross Emblem Brochure that for some reason doesn't seem to work in the pdf:
http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=000340&tid=
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
I thought their trademark was "Johnson & Johnson" in a stylized script? I've never seen the "red cross" J & J trademark. It can't be that important.
If you donate something, it must be money, not material.
This allows the Red Cross (or any other organization for that matter) to source what they need close to the disaster zone, which save time and money in logistics (and often contributes directly to the economy of a devastated area).
THe role of the Red Cross is very specific, you may think they did jack shit in some situations, but you should maybe read first their aims and objectives so you know what they do, putting aside any wishful thinking.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
How many clicks does it take you to find the red cross logo on the johnson and johnson website? (jnj.com).
I've clicked 35 times so far and haven't found it.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=265165&cid =20168829
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
A close one.
--> Insert Funny Sig Here
The same convention that Bush and his cronies decided to ignore in Guantanamo and Abu Gharib.
The PP has a huge kernel of truth.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If you had bothered to read the first sentence of my post, you would have seen that I acknowledge posting it above.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Oh, come on, many of you are thinking it already... its time to boycott J&J !
Personally, for me the symbol is 100% associated with the Red Cross (they use it in all of their commercials), and J&J is Band-Aids and Children's Shampoo. Now if the Red Cross started using a teardrop-shaped "No More Tears" logo, it would be a different story.
And since what matters is a completely editorial decision, you'll have to suck it up buddy.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I would make the argument that the Red Cross shouldn't even be trademarkable. It's a symbol that has to be thousands of years old. If anything, some lawyer ought to be able to dredge up a Knightly Order and determine that the symbol really belongs to neither J&J or the ARC.
This is my sig.
To the American Red Plus Sign. See? Not a cross.
That's ninja, not nuns.
You sit around the office, and, after terrorizing the staff, snapping some bra straps to get some outraged growls from the old bidies, and making chains out of paper clips, you get bored and start making prank phone calls.
But they have to look like they are billable calls.
The winner of this week's calls is "Boss... I think we've got a case of infringement here..."
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
They both wear the same outfit.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Its a red cross. Its not a fancy logo, a clever play on words or something that took a large amount of time and effort to design. Its a cross, one that's red. Should that really be patentable? I mean, I may as well patent all green rectangles and sue everyone with a lawn. I'm all for protecting people intellectual property, but its just a red cross. Its known throughout the world as a symbol of aid, charity and medicine not a pharmaceutical company. Where did all the common sense go?
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is not the ARC (American Red Cross). The ICRC decides what resources they use and from where when it comes to operations outside of the US, so it may not involve the ARC at all, for they are separate entities. Most people make the mistake of lumping them all together as the "Red Cross" which is a mistake. The American media is partially to blame for the common misconception as well as poor PR on the part of the ARC. This explains your experience.
"This is America... where the will of the few outweigh the outrage of the many..." - Unknown
Bronze them and use them as lawn ornaments.
Keep them around as an example of "dumber than a post". Drawback: Posts may feel belittled.
Use them to scare your kids: "Better study or you will be as stupid as him."
I think that JnJ has a decent complaint:
h tm
http://www.jnj.com/news/jnj_news/20070809_081717.
They can be the red lowercase, "t" (for triage, perhaps?) Problem solved.
According the AP: "Johnson & Johnson noted that it had contributed $5 million (3.62 million) over the past three years to the Red Cross and will continue to make donations." And now they want $10 million (the profits ARC has made on its own line of products using the red cross) + laywer costs, etc. Funny how that works.
The red cross trademark has been "destroyed" for a long time, in the minds of many people. There are a huge number of people out there who associate the red cross trademark with the Red Cross organization, and think that they permit its use on approved medical supplies and home aid kids.
No matter how 'in-the-right' JnJ are with defending their trademark, for a lot of people, they don't associate it with JnJ, but with the Red Cross. JnJ are shooting themselves in the feet with this, since it is so easy to manufacture some bad press and make them look like the bad guys. And considering how gullible and sheepish so many people are...
I have to be honest, that I think it would have been wiser for JnJ to either give the trademark to the Red Cross with an agreement that JnJ can use it on their products, or quietly switch to a new trademark that hasn't already been "lost" in the minds of so many.
Calling a sword by a pretty name is no more than adding perfume to poison.
Wait ... no? This is serious? LMAO
Non-profit organisations are still a business too. They are in business to make money (donations), even though an estimation of 90% of donations go to operating costs and the leftover 10% actually goes to the relief efforts. Plus, with the commercialization of other non-profit organisation items (Breast cancer: pink ribbons, pink hockey sticks, pink cadillacs), ARC's case doesn't sound convincing to the well-informed consumer/donor. Many other non-pro organistions have steered away from such promotional items and ventures because they detract from the original message rather than create awareness.
The New York Times mentioned someting I didn't see in that story. It's not that the Red Cross was using the symbol. They've been sharing this sybmol for a hunderd years without issue. It's that the Red Cross Started licensing this symbol to other companies to raise money. That changes the aspect of the case IMO.
... that the details of the Geneva Convention won't even come up in court.
I think its pretty apparent that no one can use the red cross unless it falls under the Geneva Convention's rules. If the US signed it, you'd think they'd be obligated to correct the situation. One can make the claim that the US couldn't do a comprehensive search for companies breaking the Convention. However, you cannot claim that this won't get out in the open at this point in time. Someone could make some public statement on a major news network and I doubt anything would actually happen.
This is a blatant breach of the Convention. It's a shame the US doesn't do anything about it.
>> On the bright side, my fiance is a huge fan or organics and natural products
> Myself and my fiance are both big fans of the Method products.
Are there any... women here today...?
Red Cross Aid: You've lost a lot of blood. Do you know your blood type?
Victim: O-negative
Red Cross Aid: Excuse me while I check our stock.
Victim: Hurry up, I'm a lawyer for Johnson & Johnson
Red Cross Aid: Darn, we're fresh out.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
"American Red Plus"
There. Problem solved.
I'm not an expert on trademarks, but as far as I know, the Red Cross is older than Johnson & Johnson, and has ALWAYS used the red cross as a trademark. J & J could only have begun using it to associate ITSELF to the already well known Red Cross organisation, that would have ALREADY been associated with health. If anyone is infringing anyone else's trade mark, it would have to be J&J. I don't remember seeing a red cross on J&J products. I know what EVERYBODY associates the red cross with: RED CROSS. dugh. Count me in the J&J boycott. I'll spread the word.
I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
The equilateral cross is a religious symbol. One can't claim copyright to something like that. Does anyone own a copyright on the name of Allah or the Seal of Solomon?
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.
...a famly multinational conglomerate.
The red cross or the red + as it where is the international symbol for aid
whether it be first aid, as in injuries, or just aid in general.
Look at any ambulance, first aid kit, medical device, they all have the red cross
IMHO the red cross/ red + should not be allowed to be a service mark, or trade mark of any company or organization.
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
http://www.jnj.com/contact_us
I'm sure glad that big corporations never push people around to get what they want in this country.
They're a non-profit you dolts! When was the last time Jerk and Jack-Off did something good for anyone without
an ulterior motive? Never, I'm sure.
Thanks for the heads up, another company I can add to my list of ones to not buy from.
Remember when the World Wrestling Federation sued the World Wildlife Federation for the trademark WWF?
Wildlife Foundation is still WWF, wrasslin' is now WWE.
I see this playing out in similar fashion.
But no. The guy lets himself get nailed to a cross. He dies a horrible agonizing death that he didn't really strictly have to. I submit that there must have been a reason behind it and that, as such, it isn't the sort of thing that he would just sweep under the rug. Helloooo! He's sending a message here, people!
(The contents of this message are a subject for theologians, and not well-suited for a Slashdot post, even one as offtopic as this one is already. But on a related note, this is behind the reasons that the Orthodox and Catholic churches use a crucifix with Jesus hanging on it, not just a cross like many (most?) Protestant denominations.)
Also, I'm probably going to be modded down for all this.....
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
While this looks petty, my sympathies go with J&J. The Red Cross is a political organization above all, any apparent good they do is probably collateral damage.
I volunteered for a rather large branch a number of years ago. While not unfamiliar with the evils of local politics, these guys were ugly. They would have volunteers call up local restaurants to order lunch for the staff and then pull the "but we're the Red Cross, you're just going to donate it, right?" The concern was getting donations and being seen, but any ideas that might do good were seen as expenses to the current money making machine.
I did their website for free, only asking my name be left on as designer until the next redesign. The next redesign took place the next day, it seemed to only involve taking my name off. I wanted to help the braille department, which was fascinating. I reworked some of their forms and spreadsheets, but I just couldn't take the place any more.
On 11-Sep-2001 this particular chapter, within 40 miles of ground zero, refused to mobilize citing distance. Local police and firemen from the same area were moved in immediately. Of course, when the dust settled, the group did take any money given to them. I gave up shortly after that.
If J&J wants their logo forbidden to the Red Cross it's probably more than just a whim. Chances are some group was invoking some kind of J&J association that made the company uncomfortable.
Because of the ARC you are no longer allowed to use the logo on health packs in video games, correct?
These are good points; one that I don't think you put enough emphasis on is the last bit...
because the local populace won't give enough blood to cover what they use.
Blood is in very short supply right now. The Red Cross is working very hard to find enough donors to meed the demand.
Maybe the RC didn't do as much as they could have in New Orleans, but that situation was such a mess, the fact that they did anything is impressive. Don't try to tell me they didn't make a difference down there.
Please do not forget the mission of the Red Cross. If you are able to donate money and this it is a worthwhile cause, donate away. Unless you have a medical reason why you should not donate blood every 56 days, then go and donate blood. Even if you are AB+ go and donate. Sure your packed red cells are useless to most everyone out there, but your plasma can and will save lives. If you are O- then donate if for no other reason than self preservation. Bottom line- donate blood. Rock-It-Out!
I can think of another red cross used about 2000 years ago.
Color-blind trademark lawyers will also be going after Blue Cross and Green Cross.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
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.
Sounds like another corporation pushing its weight. Sounds like a call for a Boycott of J&J products. Unfortunately, this is the only way to reach greedy executives that make these decisions. Hit 'em in the pocket. To bad we could get people to do this to the RIAA too.
because they have no license (they have a license from someone who had no right to give them a license).
These competitors can sue ARC if they want for mis-selling, but they'll be the ones with the bad rep for doing so.
The International Committee (18631029) and American (1881????) Red Cross were both in existence and using the "Red Cross" prior to J&J (1887????). J&J and their legal are really big fyucking idiots. J&J just screwed themselves to the wall (another example of USA Corporatism). The ICRC & ARC can demand J&J halt its use of the red cross symbol on products it sells to the public and pay for previous use and pay the ICRC license fees for any further future use. J&J ... such boneheads, maybe they are like other C-average pirate skulls&bones leaders, empty-space where there was never a brain; Therefore, useless, but terrifyingly threating.
3 da005fdb1b/1548c3c0c113ffdfc125641a0059c537?OpenDo cument
... "Hold It", that may be an astrix*, and globally J&J would lay claim to all logos and text in the world, I hope it is already copyright/trademark protected in the USA from corporatist/congressional piracy.
IOW: It does not mater (even in the USA) when J&J began using the "Red Cross" trademark, it was illegal and infringed on the property right of the IRIC. If the ARC has begun licensing the symbol to third parties then approval by the ICRC has been obtained or is required.
Resolutions of the Geneva International Conference. Geneva, 26-29 October 1863.
http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d14de6160e0c1256
The International Conference, desirous of coming to the aid of the wounded should the Military Medical Services prove inadequate, adopts the following Resolutions:
Article 1...7
Article 8. They shall wear in all countries, as a uniform distinctive sign, a WHITE ARMLET WITH A RED CROSS.
Article 9...10
Maybe J&J can start using a circle to represent their empty cranial capacity or a virticle bar with an x on it
!HAVEFUN!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Resolutions of the Geneva International Conference. Geneva, 26-29 October 1863.3 da005fdb1b/1548c3c0c113ffdfc125641a0059c537?OpenDo cument [icrc.org]
... "Hold It", that may be an astrix*, and globally J&J would lay claim to all logos and text in the world, I hope it is already copyright/trademark protected in the USA from corporatist/congressional piracy.
http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d14de6160e0c1256
The International Conference, desirous of coming to the aid of the wounded should the Military Medical Services prove inadequate, adopts the following Resolutions:
Article 1...7
Article 8. They shall wear in all countries, as a uniform distinctive sign, a WHITE ARMLET WITH A RED CROSS.
Article 9...10
Maybe J&J can start using a circle to represent their empty cranial capacity or a vertical bar with an x on it
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
./ posts a short summary of the news article, and the whole purpose of a summaries existance is so that you get the jist of the content and don't have to read it unless you want greated details. But to exclude critical information in a summary shows an agenda at work at simply laziness on the writer's behalf. So the only person we should be blaming for not RTFA is the original poster, as his poor choice trickled down into dozens of other people's comments.
You can buy all sorts of red cross branded merchandise: http://www.redcrossshop.org/ Flashlights, shirts, disaster kits - and the prices are reasonable, especially for the first aid kits.
My guess is the court thinks a reasonable person (your average man-on-the-street-tard) could be confused about whether a first aid kit with a red cross on it is a ARC or a J&J product, and J&J wants to branch out in to prefab fist aid kits or something.
However, since this is YRO, I have to judge on the side of the ARC and demand J&J replace their logo and rename their company "Evil Murderers of Kittens and Puppies in Cahoots with the RIAA Inc"
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
You guys are missing the point about the Red Cross symbol.
i on
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
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.
You'll be more informed than the submitter.
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
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
boakes.org
Most sensible post I have seen on this subject, and goes to the heart of what the issue is.
The rest of the world doesn't have a problem with the Red Cross, because they followed international rules. America didn't - the 1800s were the time when America was 'stealing' all the international IP it could lay it's hands on. Dickens books and Gilbert and Sullivan musicals were continually pirated.
Once America started producing IP, it changed it's mind and made copyright piracy a criminal offence. Now they have a trademark issue from the days when they were pirates - ha, tough shit!
How Ironic!
While the ARC should have special rights to the display of a red cross (because that and a few other symbols have been given special meaning in war), I don't see why it should cover bandages, first aid kits etc.
For the ARC to be going around stopping people from using the red cross on first aid kits etc seems to be deviating a lot the original Red Cross, whose motto in the beginning was "In War, Charity".
If J&J is doing this in defense then I suppose it's payback for the ARC.
But personally I think both parties should stop fighting (themselves and others).
After all the new Red Cross motto is apparently "With humanity, towards peace".
if Jesus Haploid Christ had been impaled instead of crucified. Tons of fun.
prior art does not play. Neither do patents or incorporation documents or dates.
Trademarks belong to those that can defend their use.
They're using their grammar skills there.
The Yukon Pine Bark Corporation of Wilmington, DE welcomes your future patronage. Your satisfaction is our number one priority, that's why we fertilize our tracts of pine forest with only the highest quality African AIDS orphan bone meal.
Signed,
Dr. Jonathan Cody
Yukon Pine Bark, LLC
In other news: Texaco announced its decision to sue the Russian Air Force for using a red star on its aircraft. A pair of Tu-95s were seen circling over Texaco's headquarters in White Plains, N.Y. earlier today. Russian Defense Ministry officials declined to comment.
If you go to both homepages, J&J and Red Cross, I see a red cross on the Red Cross page but not on the J&J one. Even after a few clicks on the J&J page, not a single red cross. Yes I am sure one exists somewhere but their "Johnson & Johnson" signature is their brand logo. Plus I was always under the impression that a red cross was an international symbol for medicine. Why the fuss now?
First post! (just in case I am...)
I read that it wasn't actually any better than normal chemicals, it just wouldn't kill you.
Personally, that seems "better" to me.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The Union Jack has those... diagonal thingies!
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
No, they nurse their malice in secret, brooding in silence for decades if necessary, until the perfect opportunity presents itself. Then, they spring into action ...
NINJA NUNS!
Sweeeeeeeet!
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
> I wonder where the money goes?
I had a series of interviews with persons in their legal department awhile ago.
It was alleged by one of their employees at the time that as much as a third of their economic resources are dedicated to preventing people from using the red cross mark.
Among the examples that I was given: They stopped phishing web sites from using the mark in bogus charity schemes. They stopped Chinese pharma companies from using the mark on drugs.
They also stopped relief workers from using the mark when they were not explicitly affiliated with the Red Cross. They stopped fund raising efforts for victims of violence where the red cross was used to indicate charitable health services. They stopped a clinic from using the mark in a needle-exchange program. They stopped Katrina support groups from using the mark to indicate free shelters. They stopped relief workers from hand-marking red pluses and x-es on water bottles to distinguish clean water from tainted water.
The people that I met at the Red Cross had a foaming-at-the-mouth zealotry and belief in their own infallibility. They were totally indiscriminate and downright violent about not merely quashing the use of the mark by others, but also devastating anyone who dared use it without their express authorization on a mission to benefit their organization. And when I say "their organization," I mean the Red Cross -- not the people that the organization is supposed to help. They bragged about making violators into paupers.
They seemed to view the use of the mark as a sacred trust and in respect of that, it's a little shocking to realize that they've now licensed the mark to third parties in what appears to be nothing more than a money-grab. It seems like a heresy.
Don't they both have a training regimen that involves beating you with a stick?... Coincidence? I think not.
People who quote themselves bug the crap out of me -- Me.
I think both parties are missing the point in this law suit. The Red Cross has become so ubiquitous, that it is no longer a protected trademark. It is a symbol, no more potected then the octagonal stop sign, or the pirate's skull and cross bones flag. In fact many armies use the red cross symbol and there is a lot of signage with it. If anybody is paying the red cross organization, then it is really not for licensing but to give a charitable contribution. J&J's lawyers are ridiculous. What's next? Trademarking the letter 'J'?.
"This HAS to be protected. Period. There is no discussion on this matter -- the sanctity of the Red Cross / Crystal / Crescent is beyond paramount."
Then tell the Red Cross to stop selling it to the highest bidder.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Much more appropriate, as that was the Royal legal system at the time the cross was in use. It also has the advantage of being portable, making covert renditions unnecessary. You can convene the court at the victi^H^H^H^H^Hsuspect's house, if you want. Use of the rack during cross-examination is not advised, though, as the neighbors may complain about the noise.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Trademarks must be actively defended, and the Red Cross has been placing its symbol on medical-related goods for decades. Variants of the red cross symbol are used on military ambulances, first-aid stations, emergency medical supplies and other similar contexts. By now, the trademark must surely be considered so diluted as to be considered generic. This happens with words a lot, and the companies really don't lose by it, although to hear them bitch and moan they do. If this symbol has now entered the realm of common usage, I think it might be the first to do so, which would be interesting.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This is one of those fights, where even if you win you lose. A Pyrrhic victory for sure.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
NUNJAS!
I use my Kentucky Jelly on my biscuits from Kentucky Fried Chicken.
~S
I Understand that as we speak, the Pope is sending J&J a Cease and desist statement under the DMCA.. Since the Pope is historically viewed as Christ's representative on earth (please spare the protestant retorts, I am a protestant myself, we are talking western history here). He is the one that would hold the IP rights to it, until Christ returns of course.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
Except the Red Cross agreed that they would not use J&J's trademark over a hundred years ago, and have now violated that agreement.
It doesn't mean squat who recognizes the red cross as what, what matters in this case is US law, and the Red Cross violated it, and their original agreement.
So being "late to the game" means NOTHING in light of the fact that the parties had a previous, legally binding agreement.
RTFA, it's good for you and you won't make mistakes like this again.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Not sure if this is redundant to the previous 999 posts, but this is currently the ARC's response:
FAQ
Q) How is the Red Cross responding to J&J's lawsuit?
A) The Red Cross is outraged that J&J would try to restrict how the Red Cross uses its own emblem to achieve its mission. The Red Cross will be aggressively defending its right to use the Red Cross emblem to help prepare families and individuals for life's emergencies.
Q) Why is J&J able to use the Red Cross emblem on products sold in retail stores?
A) The American Red Cross has used the Red Cross emblem since its inception in 1881. J&J started using a red cross symbol as a trademark in 1887. Congress granted the American Red Cross the exclusive right to use the Red Cross emblem in 1905, and at the same time allowed third parties that had used a red cross symbol before 1905 to continue using a red cross symbol for limited purposes. These third-party users are called "grandfathered users" and J&J is one of several grandfathered users.
Q) What is licensing?
A) The American Red Cross licensing program grants partners called "Licensees" the legal right to use certain assets of the American Red Cross--such as its emblem, content and access to human and other resources--to develop and promote products important to the health and safety of the American public. In exchange, the Red Cross receives a fee in the form of royalties, based on a percentage of sales. Since 2004, the Red Cross has worked with several licensing partners to create first aid, preparedness and related products that bear the Red Cross emblem.
Q) Why does the Red Cross sell licensed products in retail stores?
A) Recent research shows that less than 7 percent of the American public has taken the necessary steps to get prepared, and the American Red Cross strongly believes that the most effective way to distribute these emergency preparedness products is through retail channels where Americans regularly shop. This widespread distribution of products is exactly what J&J is seeking to prevent.
Q) How much money does the Red Cross receive from its licensed products?
A) In fiscal year 2006, the Red Cross's revenue from the retail sale of licensed preparedness products was $2 million.
Q) How is the money raised by licensed products used by the Red Cross?
A) The money the Red Cross receives from the sale of these products to consumers is reinvested in its humanitarian programs and services.
J&J has "work camps" here in the states. They exploit the *extremely* poor by stuffing a suburb into a bus, hauling them off to their factories, where they work for minimum wage.
Sure, it's voluntary, and money is money, but just so you know, that lube next to the tissues is made & packaged & shipped by minimum wage employees with effectively no other options with no room for promotion. What do you think "A Family Company" means?
It's not so much the product (in my mind at least), it's the way it's made. Whatever happened to unions?
*sigh*
J&J sued the vatican and the city of Rome for its usage of the cross symbol :-)
The goddamn mission statement of the organization is that they are apolitical! They are neutral to everything except the suffering of humans. Perhaps that means they fund-raise aggressively, so be it, but they'll help you regardless of what you think of them.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Lousiana refused the help.
"We had adequate supplies, the people and the vehicles," Howell said at a news conference in Baton Rouge. "It was the middle of a military rescue operation trying to save lives. We were asked not to go in, and we abided by that recommendation."
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
They (ARC) already had the logo in use.. Per law no case exists and this should be thrown out with prejudice.
The red cross started selling nail files, baby wipes and othe rstuff with J&J symbol on it. They existed peacefully for 100+ years, J&J made commerical products and red cross was a RELIEF agency not a COMPETITOR. Now they are competing directly with J&j and using the same logo.
You won't buy from J&J? I will never donate to ARC again after pulling a scam like this...
The Red Cross is *clearly* in the wrong on this one. Their charter is very clear, and J&J has them dead to rights.
So, the ARC has also been using the symbol for a bit over a century. As far as I(amNotALawyer) know, US trademark case law has held for the bulk of that time that trademarks not actively protected are lost. From where I sit, both have a claim to use of the trademark Crux Couped Gules, similar to the use of "Superhero" as a jointly (albeit stupidly) held trademark of DC and Marvel.
"A pox on both their houses"... no, wait, that might help their businesses. Never mind then.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
... the Swiss government sues Johnson & Johnson for using the ICRC symbol without its permission.
Have gnu, will travel.
Nun Ninjas!
Vinegar can be used as a replacement for all these products. Check out www.101usesforvinegarinsteadofjohnsonsandjohnsonpr oductsforthespendthrift.com.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Have gnu, will travel.
So as any good muslim can safely attest, there's the hated enemy, attack and never let up. Send them all to Allah so he can judge who is right!! Drive them from our home and kick their teeth down their throats so they can't come back again.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
Ah, about that cross...
...and their explanations of their actions concerning not operating in New Orleans:
...and some other info at a glance:
From the Canadian Red Cross page on the Red Cross emblem:
http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=000340&tid=0 19
It may be worth it to clarify that the emblem that they're defending (the one backed by the Geneva Convention) is "five equal-sized red squares arranged in a cross pattern on a white background". It is not the Knights Templar cross, nor the Cross of St. George. Concerning the British and various other nations/religions/knightly orders that have commented on the idea of Amcross (or JnJ or the ICRC) defending a trademark over something that is also "theirs", mind that as I understand it, trademarking specifies a particular type of mark, not a general concept. They're not "fighting over your mark", they're fighting over theirs. Specifically, a trademark of five, equal-sized red squares arranged in a cross pattern on a white background. I would think that the Cross of St. George (since it seems to traditionally have its arms stretch to the boards of the shield/device/background) is sufficiently different. Ditto with the "latin" cross normally associated with Christianity (at least in North America, no offense intended towards any of the Orthodox/Papal groups)
Here's the Wikipedia link on crosses (kinda nifty):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross
As for the other issues mentioned about Amcross, well, that's another kettle of fish. Here's a few links to audit-related articles about Amcross:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/29/eveningn ews/main516700.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/30/eveningn ews/main516886.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/31/eveningn ews/main517045.shtml
http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.h tml
http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/katrina _facts.html
http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/2005/fa cts.html
Here's some more grease for the fires. Rebuttals, anyone?
http://www.redcross.org/pressrelease/0,1077,0_489_ 5052,00.html
For the Americans, here's a link to what Amcross says they can do for you in case of a disaster:
http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1095,0_378_,00.html
For everyone else, try www.redcross.(insert country code here). For us Canadians, it's http://www.redcross.ca/. Here's the disaster link: http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=000302&tid=0 25
The South Asian Tsunami was again a different sort of beast, since it was overseen by the ICRC (not Amcross). I can't back this up, since it's hearsay from someone with the CRC, but I had it explained to me that much of the money raised for the SAT was in fact sent to the area. I've have heard people complain that millions of dollars were spent on administration costs. This is true as well. I take it to be a matter of different POVs, since I understand the overhea
This is not the worst thing J&J ever did, for example I notice in the store they sell "Baby Oil". Pressing babies for oil has to be one of the most cruel is disgusting practices I've ever seen. How can this even be allowed? And then there is this "Baby Powder" they also sell which I assume must be a by-product of the oil making process.
It's nice that you fiance is a huge fan of organics and natural products. But I find that some people are far too enamored with buying anything "all natural". I remember this piece of advice:
"Natural does not mean non-toxic"
And this related bit of wisdom:
"Non-toxic doesn't mean that it's good for you"
This is a stupid thing that J & J is doing the American Red Cross and we should boycott J & J for this. This is like the a person in New York who open a restaurant called "Soni" and that is her given name and Sony, the Japanese company, sued her for using that name even though that the restaurant is local to New York and only has similar sound and that is a personal name that she is using. Eventually the ACLU help her and Sony drop the suit but suing for same name is ridiculous since we will run out names pretty quickly... unless your are a spammer;)
American Red Cross, the service organization, and the red cross symbol that J & J is using to market their bandage are known to be separate entities and even the J & J bandages state the the red cross symbol is not affiliated with the American Red Cross. What the f*&*k is the J & J up to?
The goddamn mission statement of the organization is that they are apolitical! They are neutral to everything except the suffering of humans.
Indeed, that is the stated goal. I believed it and admired it enough to volunteer. I can only speak of my first hand knowledge. Other branches have other styles of management, some even enjoy good reputations. However, the organization as a whole seems to tolerate questionable the branches as long as there is cash flow.
When I say political, I'm talking about the mechanizations of mutual back scratching that can plague any fund raising entity. Kind of like office politics that leaks.
They'll help you regardless of what you think of them.
People will help people. A large organization is supposed to enable that, not inhibit it. Everyone at a site may do there best. However, when the need of such sites is weighted against local favors and not just need, it's simply dirty.
Nunchucks for the win
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
You can't take the sky from me...
You can trademark a red cross?
Heck, how do I get a trademark on red circles?
Textbook companies everywhere, get ready to pay up......
Goodbye sweet karma, but here goes.
Bullshit. If organ donation is mandatory then all I have to do is find somebody that is a good match for me and kill him. If I'm at the top of the list I win and so do several others. Even if I go to jail for a while, at least I'll be alive. So help me, if that world comes about I hope you and the people who promote it are the first ones against the wall.
Its all well and good to hold your own opinions but have a fucking heart. Having a loved one die is #3 on the list of most stressful things in this life. Do you know what #1 is? Having to choosing to remove a loved one from life support, specifically when its not clear cut. And a significant portion of the population feel that way about organ donation. You win the most callous jackass of the month prize. (BTW - having a spouse commit suicide is #2. These ranks are from a peer reviewed medical ethics journal circa 1992. Sorry, I don't recall the exact reference.)
There are some people who feel that the body is perfectly equivalent to the person who just resided in it. For them stealing the person's organs is like stealing their soul. Would you like me to steal your mom's soul? How about just a piece? If you really are just a materialist then how about 1 cubic inch of her still living brain, your choice which cubic inch. (sorry to be so graphic but the point must be made)
Truly, organ donation is a miracle of modern science and the population needs to be educated about it, but it must always be a choice. The Red Cross really messed up for this guy, he should not have been pressured and badgered, and he certainly should not have to defend his choice to people like you. In an ideal world the choice of what to do with your remaining highly organized hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen after the ineffable sweet glory of consciousness has faded should be up to you. But in a world where death does not ordain to notify us in advance that is not always possible. Forcing a loved one who is in the most acute stages of grief to voluntarily commit an act of unspeakable instinctual horror isn't kind or fair, but it is often a necessary thing and so should be undertaken with exquisite care and sensitivity.
Refusing organ donation is distinctly not tantamout to murder. If it is for you then I hope to whatever you believe in that you donate blood every 6 weeks or platelets every 2 weeks, sperm/ova at every chance you get and are registered at the National Marrow Donor Program http://www.marrow.org/ at the very least. After all its just spare biological material you're not going to use, right?
Can someone translate this comment into English? It looks like it might be hilarious if only I could read it!
...a lot of people don't know that the American Red Cross is divided into two seperate entities. Chapter Services, and Blood Services. I happen to work on the blood side of the business...(I won't say in what department, because I don't want it coming back to haunt me later.)
The symbol known as the red cross, has been a universal symbol used by the military, various organizations,and religious entities as a universal for aid, neutrality, and a place where you can find help.
1. I think it's idiotic that J&J feels the need to sue ARC. a. we're a non-profit organization. b. We're the fucking American Red Cross, it's OUR logo. We're not the blue cross, we're not the yellow cross....we're the RED CROSS. We have to beg for donors, both cash and blood. Sure, we sell items to the general public, but it's to support our field operations. Blood Collection, Emergency Services (you know when a something bad happens and you lose your livelihood?), Military Services (when one of your family members dies and you have to be contacted, we do that...), Health and Saftey Services (we teach you CPR, and teach your kids how to swim, and let you know all about diseases.), Volunteer Services(we make sure there are people to do the jobs, and that they're adequately trained.), Disaster Services,(when mother nature craps on your house), International Services (when other countries need aid, we show up and help)....and we do it all by donations...J&J should be ashamed of themselves.
2. That being said, I think it's irreprehensible that the Red Cross has been suing people over the logo. (if that's indeed true) It only makes us look bad.
3. Both parties should be ashamed of themselves....the Red Cross doesn't stand for any of that garbage. Humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity, and universality. That's what we stand for, and everyone involved needs to remember that.
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
Here's the note I just sent to thier website. Fun.
__
I don't see any mention on your front page on your lawsuit against the American Red Cross. As I understand it you object to them selling fundraiser products with the red cross on it.
OK.
Well, as a result I will try my darndest to never, ever by another product with the "Johnson and Johnson" mark on it. Good job whoever decided to start that lawsuit.
Sincerely, Bruce Triggs (Father of six-year-old twins. They'll be interested to learn why we're switching band-aids, and I'm sure they'll remember and continue our new family tradition.)
Seeing all this crap going on in "the land of the Free", I really urge all of us that are not under its jurisdiction to make damn sure there is no IP rights harmonization, converting our more sensible laws into something benefitting the American lawyer population.
Seriously, keep a sharp eye on proposed laws in your own country, that are being pushed by the U.S... In Europe we've managed to beat them once with the software patents legislation, but they keep pushing. They in this case is US goverment/Microsoft; awfully enough there is no difference, Our ms. Kroes has stated her annoyance a being approached by US ambassadors to go easy on M$. She's got some big brass ones though, and I don't see her being pushed around at all.
Bart
I don't know where the hell you live but I can guarantee you that the same kind of shit is being pulled by Red Cross/Red Cresent in Norway, coincidentally the same country hosting and supplying members to the committee that awards the Nobel Peace Prize to whomever seems politically fashionable. The level of fat-cat profiteering in RC/RC is disgusting and it doesn't matter that they're "not for profit" when they use so much of their income (some of it even from preying on gambling addicts) on fat salaries.
I'm ashamed of, and regret, ever giving them money. I have absolutely no reason to think the RC/RC acts differently anywhere in any country since they are an international organization with, ultimately, a common leadership and leadership decisions.
J&J&Bush&Chaney&...politicians may not look like Goatse, but all those butts are as equally gross.
/..
Also, I just noticed that a Troll-Dole left me a point, which always means I have some respect from the dogma-hogs and mythologist.
I wounder how to identify the entertaining doling Droll-Trolls [AKA: corporate lobbyist] on
HAVEFUN!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
this is a reference to the stoning scene in 'the life of brian'
as this thread has been about hanging from a tree vs stoning this is completely on topic
basically women were not allowed to take part in a stoning, but brians mum takes him to a stoning. beforehand they are sold beards and a packet of gravel, also some pointy ones.
truely classic