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.
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
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.
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
... 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.
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.
The crux of the matter...
Neocons:
They are all republicans until their republican ideals get in the way of their lust for power or money.
They are all xians until their xain ideals get in the way of their lust for power or money.
We need to find a Voodoo witch doctor and Nixon's corpse.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Hmm... in 2003 the President of the American Red Cross made $651,957. While I'm sure that the Preident/CEO of Johnson & Johnson makes more than that, a high six-figure salary is nice money if you can get it.
That sounds closer to compensation levels at a "big heartless corporation" than for "a little non-profit".
My first thought when I read the summary was, "Hah, suckers are getting what they deserve!"
My dad had a small red cross in a button, overlaid with text, on his (small) company website that linked to his "First Aid" section. The Canadian Red Cross sent him a cease and desist letter and threatened to have lawyers shut him down... (yes, he's in Canada!)
I understand protecting a copyright, but it's not like my dad was using the "red cross" as or in his company logo or something. They should waste less time on that kind of crap and spend more time helping people.
Anyways, I changed it to a green cross and they can go suck a fat one.
And J&J, even within your take, has every right to be pissed. The Red Cross is a non-profit organization, it should not be giving out permission to use a symbol that is trademarked for commercial use by another organization.
Except, how can a corporation trademark a symbol that's already in use by a non-profit, and has been in use for 23 years before said corporation was even founded? You know they had to have picked that symbol just because there were charities in Europe already using it.
As for dating the symbol, as you point out, it was in use well before the Red Cross came into existence and claimed the trademark, including national flags. So the Red Cross probably shouldn't have any claim to the symbol either, yet it is sending legal letters to commercial entities saying to stop using it, AND is producing commercial products using it.
Except... the Red Cross is who was originally using it. They renamed themselves the International Committee of the Red Cross after a few decades when they were officially reorganized and recognized by the Geneva Convention, but they were doing work and using the symbol long before then.
Not only that, their symbol is protected by international law, so they have every right -- some would say duty -- to stop people from using it inappropriately.
Not only THAT, but the only thing I've ever seen the Red Cross sell -- and only on redcross.org -- is stuff like First Aid kits and emergency kits for your car -- things that you would think that the Red Cross would be quite happy to sell for fundraising. It's not like they don't have a surplus. The way the J&J guys are making it sound you can just walk up to any Walmart and buy a box of "Red Cross brand Bandaids". That's not the case at all.
Non profits and charities CAN sell things. Just because you're not in it for the money doesn't mean money isn't useful.
Well said. The Red Cross isn't what people think. About an hour after I learned my father died from a sudden heart attack and I was a complete basket case, the Red Cross called about organ donation. My wife answered the call, asked the person to give us space, and told her we'd call if we were interested in making the donation. The person started going into very graphic detail about decomposition and *insisted* we donate the organs immediately. (Isn't that nice?) Again, my wife told the Red Cross not to call back. A few hours later my cell phone rang. It was the Red Cross asking me to donate my father's organs.
The Red Cross has its own agenda and doesn't care about people's requests or wishes. So it doesn't surprise me it's violating its agreements with Johnson & Johnson. The Red Cross thinks it can do whatever it wants because it's a charitable organization. If you read the article, J&J is right in this issue, and I hope the company prevails in what is a clear trademark violation.