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.
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.
As I heard the story this morning, the issue is the J & J licensed the use of the red cross trademark to the ARC so long as it was not used for profit.
ARC has now re-licensed the trademark they do not own to for-profit organizations to put on their products, some of which compete with J & J products directly. Yes, the ARC will get a portion of the proceeds from these sales, but the other companies make a profit at the expense of the J & J trademark.
So J & J has no choice but to sue the ARC to prevent them from sub-licensing the trademark they do not own.
Take the emotions out of the discussion, this is purely business. No, it is not big pharma beating on a poor charity, it is a trademark licensee abusing a license agreement in such a way the owner of the trademark is negatively impacted. Until J & J officially turns the trademark over to the ARC, they own and they must defend it.
no, its not a joke. The Red Cross was intentionally designed based on the Swiss flag by reversing the color scheme. In other words it IS derivative work. This happened in 1864 by the IKRK. The Red Cross is an international, not just an American, organization with its root in Switzerland. Switzerland should sue J+J. In case you can read German: http://www.geschichte-schweiz.ch/schweizer-flagge- schweizerkreuz.html
It seems to me that the US government has a duty to prevent private companies violating the Geneva Conventions, and if the convention is properly implemented in law, there should be a valid legal reason to strike down J&J's trademark.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
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.
Trademarks don't work that way. Firstly the Red Cross acknowldeged JnJ's trademark to the cross logo for certain commcercial medical products in 1895. That alone more or less ruins their case. Secondly before you get angry and JnJ for being monsters, remember that (in the US) if you don't defend your trademark you lose it. Finally even if you hate corporate America I hope that you can acknowledge that it is equally sleazy for a non-profit organization to hide behind its humanitarian efforts to blatantly violate previous agreements that it has signed and to license something that they do not have the registered trademark for. I think people should take a step back and wait for the case to work its way out, but at face value it appears that the Red Cross is very much in the wrong, and JnJ is in the right (legally).
The US signed the First Convention in 1882. I think that's all the directly relevant bits to this case. IANAL.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
My understanding from reading the Reuters articles published on several websites now (I am not privy to licensing agreements between the ARC and JnJ) is that JnJ allows the Red Cross to use their trademark (the cross) free of charge and has only taken issue with the red cross in turn taking JnJ's trademark (the cross) and both licensing it to JnJ competitors and selling competing medical supply kits with the cross. Again it sounds as if the ARC is actually in the wrong here but it really cannot be determined unless you have access to all of the documentation between the two companies. My best guess is that the ARC will continue to use the red cross (JnJ's mark) and will stop licensing its use and probably selling competing medical kits with the cross. If you are interested you can go to the US PTO's website and search for trademark with serial number 76617076. That is the mark JnJ is contending that the Red Cross is licensing to third parties even though they do not own it.
"After more than a century of strong cooperation in the use of the Red Cross trademark.
It said these product include baby mitts, nail clippers, combs, toothbrushes, hand sanitizers and humidifiers.
The Red Cross said that many of the products in question were part of health and safety kits, and that profits from the sales -- totaling less than $10 million (7.25 million) -- went to boost Red Cross disaster-response efforts. They didn't start enforcing their trademark, they starting selling licenses of a trademark for which they didn't have permission to sell licenses. Again, from TFA:
Johnson & Johnson said it has had exclusive rights to use the trademark on certain commercial products -- including bandages and first-aid cream -- for more than 100 years.
It contends that the Red Cross is supposed to use the symbol only in connection with nonprofit relief services. I suppose it should just come down to whatever (hopefully) written agreement Johnson & Johnson and the American Red Cross have.
According to this, they did raise the issue in 1895 and made an agreement then. The Red Cross has just recently violated said agreement.
:q!
Very likely not.
From the NY Times version of the story. "The company entered into an agreement with the American Red Cross in 1895. The agreement acknowledged Johnson & Johnson's exclusive right to the red cross as a "trademark for chemical, surgical and pharmaceutical goods of every description," according to the lawsuit."
If the Red Cross ever had exclusive rights to the trademark in the US (It's not clear that they did), they appear to have voluntarily given them up. The lawsuit specifically addresses only products that compete with J&J. Looks to me like a clear violation of both the letter and intent of Trademark law. This seems not to be a case of J&J going after the Red Cross in order to add a few bucks to its bottom line. It looks to be a case of J&J protecting its century old shared trademark from overt, gratuitous infringing actions by the Red Cross.
Note also that J&J suggested arbitration. The Red Cross said no.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
So no more J&J brands:
* Acuvue
* Aveeno
* Band-Aid
* Carefree
* Clean & Clear
* K-Y
* Neutrogena
* Rembrandt
* Stayfree
* Tylenol
* Ambi Skin Care
* O.B. Tampons
* Purpose Skin Care
* Reach
* RoC Skincare
* Monistat
* Shower to Shower
Or products from their 230 subsidiaries:
* ALZA Corporation
* Animas Corporation
* BabyCenter, L.L.C.
* Biosense Webster, Inc.
* Centocor, Inc.
* Cilag
* Codman & Shurtleff, Inc.
* Cordis Corporation
* DePuy, Inc.
* Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.
* Ethicon, Inc.
* Gynecare
* Independence Technology, LLC
* Janssen Pharmaceutica
* Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P.
* Johnson & Johnson, Group of Consumer Companies, Inc.
* Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems Inc.
* Johnson & Johnson - Merck Consumer Pharmaceuticals Co.
* Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.
* LifeScan, Inc.
* McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals
* McNeil Nutritionals
* Noramco, Inc.
* Ortho Biotech Products, L.P.
* Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. OCD
* Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical
* Ortho-Neutrogena (a merge of Neutrogena and Ortho Dermatological)
* Personal Products Company
* Penaten
* Pfizer Consumer
* Pharmaceutical Sourcing Group Americas (PSGA)
* Pharmaceutical Group Strategic Marketing (PGSM)
* Peninsula Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
* Scios Inc.
* Tasmanian Alkaloids
* Therakos, Inc.
* Tibotec
* Transform Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
* Veridex, LLC
* Vistakon
I respect your intentions, but good luck stormin' the castle!
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
I posted about this elsewhere already. The ARC isn't what you think it is. A chapter semi-local to me has absolutely no resources to help any of the people in its region because the ARC requires charter dues of around $25,000-$100,000 per year(in return you get to use their name to do fund raising much like the Ronald McDonald House) and this particular chapter only makes about $20,000 *total* over the dues, and that has to pay for any employees and resources to help those in need. You would think the ARC would see that the region is dirt poor and give them a break and maybe even give them some new resources to help out...but you'd be wrong. The people at the head of the ARC seem to only be interested in the Benjamins to the point that my friend who was the head of the local chapter just quit out of disgust. I hope J&J wins.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
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