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.

6 of 739 comments (clear)

  1. Classic case of trade mark infringment. by apathy+maybe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  2. Originality? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:"Saint"? Oh please. by vigmeister · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This was like my experience when the Tsunami struck Asia. I had lived in two of the worst hit places (in India and Indonesia) and could speak the languages. I called the local Red Cross and asked them if they had any efforts going on there and if I could go (on my own ticket) and help out with the rescue efforts. The ARC were like, ummm... We aren't really sending people there, but you can donate the money. I replied saying I could SEE red cross workers there on TV. The female's said that they were from a different country (probably local) and that the ARC was a separate entity. Then she offered me a volunteer position as a phone operator. I think it might jsut be the ARC, but still...

    Cheers!

    --
    Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
  4. Red Cross is a scam anyway (not a troll) by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.
  5. Re:"Saint"? Oh please. by db32 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Haven't you been reading the news lately? The Red Cross had stated they were going to police the use of the logo in every form and use. They were going after video games for using the symbol to denote health packs. I can't even begin to count the number of places I have seen the symbol used to denote various types of medical assistance in games, media, etc, so the Red Cross needs a ton of funding to hire enough people to search through all media everywhere looking for violations and even more for the lawyers to attack the offenders.

    I think the most moronic part about that is that they claim their mark is being misused or diluted or whatever. But because of its widespread use in modern media and the like EVERYONE is going to know by the age of 10 what the symbol means...Medical Help Here!

    While I have no love for J&J for this stunt, I have no sympathy for the Red Cross. Taste of their own poison serves them right. They may have done wonderful things in the past, and they are a terribly important organization overall, but they need a swift kick in the balls to get themselves back on track and helping people instead of going after innane bullshit. They have been a monsterous waste of resources as of late, and it is about time someone steps up and fixes it.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  6. Re:I understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.