Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

American Red Cross Sued For Using a Red Cross

Posted by kdawson on from the hard-to-win-a-pissing-match-with-a-saint dept.

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.

144 of 739 comments (clear)

  1. I understand... by techpawn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:I understand... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm just going to go the extra mile and whenever I see a J&J product I'll think, "Oh this product is from the company that sued the ARC. I think I'll go with brand X".

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    2. Re:I understand... by techpawn · · Score: 5, Funny

      As long as that "X" isn't a red one...

      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    3. Re:I understand... by jimstapleton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They have to protect it, true, but they can do something trivial, for example:

      Wouldn't one of these work?
      * Charge $10 for unlimited use by the red cross
      Or better yet,
      * donate $10,000, as "payment" for the free advertisement.

      trademark protected, company not harmed

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    4. Re:I understand... by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is exactly what I will be doing, at least as much as possible. Unfortunately there are so many J&J products on the market, hell there are a bunch in my house that I did not even know where J&J products. 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..

      ps... this is not a shameless plug, personally, I buy whats cheapest on the shelves.. but I will be looking to avoid any J&J stuff now.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    5. Re:I understand... by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 5, Funny

      If JC came back, the last thing he'd want to look at is a fucking cross.

    6. Re:I understand... by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Funny

      To much to bear?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:I understand... by djh101010 · · Score: 2, Informative

      To much to bear? Just let the parent post stand on its own; that one should go into some hall of fame somewhere. Trying to add to it just detracts from it. It's like taking the Mona Lisa and, you know, touching up some details a bit.
    8. Re:I understand... by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is the cross we're talking about.

      It was never open to anyone treating it like an Oklahoma land grab.

      This would be an interesting case of "is nothing sacred?" being an appropriate quip.

      Is J&J going to go after the US Army next? What about the rest of the planet that has been using a red cross as a medical & neutrality symbol for more than 50 years.

      This boat already sailed. This boat already sailed before any of our parents were even born.

      This would be one of those few occasions where Shrub's alleged religiousity could come in handy. He should personally tell J&J to stop this nonsense.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:I understand... by Pendersempai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you'd RTFA, the ARC started enforcing its trademark against all kinds of other products, including nail clippers, humidifiers, sanitary hand lotion, and so on. They did this simply to extort money. Now, J&J is doing the same to the ARC. Turnabout is fair play, no? Or are non-profits permitted to engage in whatever obscene rent-seeking behavior they want just because they're non-profits?

    10. Re:I understand... by phoenixwade · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I think I'll go with brand X". "Love that Joker"........
      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    11. Re:I understand... by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    12. Re:I understand... by bzipitidoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      JC would be informed that he can sue the both of them for violating His trademark. Adding some coloring isn't good enough.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    13. Re:I understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm just going to go the extra mile and whenever I see a J&J product I'll think, "Oh this product is from the company that sued the ARC. I think I'll go with brand X". Huh. I was seeing it the other way around. 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 I'll probably only buy J&J products for medical gear from now on. They're willing to call out the Red Cross and stand up for what's right, so I'll back 'em for that.
    14. Re:I understand... by Otto · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not in this article, but it's been going on for many years now. The Red Cross, in it's various countries, has been actively enforcing that the Red Cross symbol is not used by anybody for anything.

      Here's an article about where the Canadian Red Cross complained about the symbol being used on health kits in video games: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/12/canadian_red_ crosss_.html

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    15. Re:I understand... by JazzLad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      RTFA, they only have a problem with the COMMERCIAL USE of the cross, as per their agreement in the 1800's then ARC agreed to not use it that way. Now ARC sees that they can make some money letting someone make stuff with the cross on in & J&J is reminding them that this is a no-no.

      Just because a giant company is suing a non-profit does not necessarily mean the giant is wrong and the non-profit is right.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    16. Re:I understand... by HansF · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thanks Bill Hicks:
      A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fuckin' cross? It's kind of like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on."

      --
      --> Insert Funny Sig Here
    17. Re:I understand... by GungaDan · · Score: 2

      Thought you were dead, Mr. Hicks.

      Give credit where it's due - don't try to pass off dead comedians' material as your own.

      http://www.billhicks.com/

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    18. Re:I understand... by crontabminusell · · Score: 5, Informative
      From TFA:

      "After more than a century of strong cooperation in the use of the Red Cross trademark. ... we were very disappointed to find that the American Red Cross started a campaign to license the trademark to several businesses for commercial purposes," Johnson & Johnson said in a statement.

      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.
    19. Re:I understand... by pcardno · · Score: 3, Informative

      It already does - in the Bill Hicks routine that it came from.

      "Thinkin' of John, Jackie.. Thinkin' of John..."

      --
      --- Band: Joey Ultra
    20. Re:I understand... by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I had mod points....

      To extend on this line of thought. I could actually see J&J seeing this as a defensive move. If the ARC has been going around and suing companies to make them 'license' their cross, I could EASILY see them going after J&J once they feel confidant enough.

      And any time a non-profit enters the commercial realm, then defends it's actions via 'anyone who tries to hurt us is really just hurting people we help!' one should be very, very cautious and cynical.....

    21. Re:I understand... by AVee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "What about the rest of the planet that has been using a red cross as a medical & neutrality symbol for more than 50 years."

      Then why why why is the American Red Cross now using it as means to promote commercial products? Indeed an interesting case of "is nothing sacred"...

    22. Re:I understand... by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 4, Funny

      But it would still be the last thing he sees...

      Moishe, get the nails! He's loose again!

    23. Re:I understand... by jerpyro · · Score: 4, Informative

      They aren't natural, they're just non-toxic. We were using Method too for a while, but then I read that it wasn't actually any better than normal chemicals, it just wouldn't kill you.

      Real hippies use Vinegar and Water ;) Stinks bad, but there's no residue and it isn't harmful at all to you nor the environment.

    24. Re:I understand... by Ogive17 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Shesh, rtfa. J&J has had a long standing agreement with the ARC to allow them to use the red cross. J&J's issue is ARC is now using that symbol to sell products.

      Seems to me some folks at the ARC assumed the red cross was their property and forgot to ask permission before using it as a source of revenue.

      I believe J&J's issue is ARC is now a direct competator (which they are for certain items) and they are using J&J's symbol against them.

      To everyone bitching at J&J, you wouldn't like what the ARC was doing either. Maybe the wording in the lawsuit is a bit extreme, but I'm sure they'll reach an agreement.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    25. Re:I understand... by krgallagher · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "They have to protect it, true, but they can do something trivial..."

      I know this is an unpopular point of view, but I have to side with J&J. The Red Cross is licensing the symbol to companies selling products that directly compete with J&J products. If they were licensing it to companies who make hand tools it would be one thing, but they are licensing it to ones that make health and safety products. The whole point of a trademark is to make your product identifiable in the marketplace. If you see two brands of hand sanitizer side by side and both have a J&J trademark on them, you could easily grab one thinking it was the other.

      It gets worse because J&J has no control over the quality of the products being sold. It is entirely possible that their own brand will suffer because a licensee of the Red Cross will sell a substandard product.

      When I took my law class in college, the single most important point the professor stressed was "The law is not fair. It is not just. It is simply the law."

      --

      Insert Generic Sig Here:

    26. Re:I understand... by kripkenstein · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think it was Philip K. Dick who said that, if Jesus had lived in our time instead of 2000 years ago, his followers would later be wearing little pendants of electric chairs, hang up large symbols of electric chairs in their churches, etc.

    27. Re:I understand... by xappax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know that street medic organizations have gotten repeated shit from the Red Cross for putting red crosses on their uniforms. Not the Red Cross logo, mind you, just crosses that are red - a symbol that's pretty universally understood to mean "medical aid here", and an important help in a confusing emergency situation.

      They claim that they don't want people to think that activist medics are representing the Red Cross, but somehow I don't think anyone would confuse those folks in the WP photo for Red Cross employees...

    28. Re:I understand... by Cornish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Red Cross isn't a trademark, it's a federally protected symbol granted by Congressional Charter to the American National Red Cross. The symbol is also described in the treaties of Geneva, August 22, 1864, July 27, 1929 and August 12, 1949.

    29. Re:I understand... by MCraigW · · Score: 3, Funny

      They are all republicans until their republican ideals get in the way of their lust for power or money.

      Then they become democrats?

    30. Re:I understand... by griffjon · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    31. Re:I understand... by LordVader717 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not the Red Cross logo, mind you, just crosses that are red - a symbol that's pretty universally understood to mean "medical aid here", and an important help in a confusing emergency situation.


      And why do you think that the red cross is universally understood as "medical aid"? It's thanks to the International Red Cross.
      If these people volunteered to join the red cross, there wouldn't have been anything wrong, but it undermines their reputation if any shitster can walk around that people would confuse him with the red cross.
      I probably wouldn't confuse them either, but there's no strict line you can draw, which is why it's best not to use it.
    32. Re:I understand... by Don_dumb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bollocks, I really don't have an alternative to Acuvue. (and yes I did inquire about surgery)

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    33. Re:I understand... by ehrichweiss · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    34. Re:I understand... by forrestt · · Score: 2, Informative

      About a year ago my eye doctor switched me from Acuvue to Biomedics 55. I've been wearing contact lenses for almost 25 years, and they are the most comfortable lenses I have ever worn. You may want to ask your doctor about them even if J&J drop the lawsuit.

    35. Re:I understand... by caseydk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you've got it dead on. If the ARC builds up momentum, I think they could easily take it away from J&J.

      After all, it's a little non-profit that helps poor sick people against a big heartless corporation that only cares about profits and has helped increase the cost of healthcare and insurance. Hell, if they can tie the ARC to helping innocent civilians in Iraq and J&J to Haliburton, it will become an issue in the next Democratic debate.

    36. Re:I understand... by theelectron · · Score: 5, Funny

      What do you use K-Y for?
      I hear it's a jelly, so for sandwiches? With peanut butter right?
    37. Re:I understand... by MarkAyen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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".

    38. Re:I understand... by rk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I long ago determined that if I boycotted every company who did stuff that I find objectionable and/or reprehensible my only option would be to run off to the Yukon Territory and eat pine bark.

    39. Re:I understand... by madprogrammer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    40. Re:I understand... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So don't support the Red Cross. Support the St. Johns Ambulance Brigade instead. They can trace their lineage straight back to the Knights Hospitaller in the 11th century... they were the ones who discovered that sharing infected wooden tools between patients causes infection and standardized on metal tools. And, in my opinion, from my personal hands on experience, they give superior training.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    41. Re:I understand... by HuskyDog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here in the UK, you practically never see a Red cross used anywhere outside of the British Red Cross society and the various military medical services. The Red Cross don't even have to go to the expense of enforcing this, since the government do it for them via (I believe) an office in the Ministry of Defence. We don't have Red Crosses on first aid kits (they are all green and white), ambulances (other than military and the voluntary Red Cross ones), signs for hospitals etc.

      A remember a political dust up many years ago when the ruling labour party (who I think were in opposition at the time) printed a campaign leaflet about health with a Red Cross on the cover. The other parties jumped on this with glee and they had to stop distributing the leaflets.*

      Clearly, there are some sensible exceptions to this otherwise total ban. You can buy models of military ambulances with red crosses on them, and clearly there is some sort of exception for people making films and TV programmes.

      *Although I remember this event distinctly, I can't find any links to reports about it (it was more than 10 years ago). If anyone can find such a link I would be most grateful.

    42. Re:I understand... by pjr.cc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The giant may not be wrong and the non-profit may not be right... legally.

      BUT, how about we talk about morally right and wrong, or perhaps plain old fashioned good versus evil. Oh what am I thinking, neither of those concepts have any place in good old corporate greed now do they?

      Sure, you can argue J&J have every right and in fact are required to defend their trademark, but going after an organization like the ARC who has done much good in the world is just plain sickening. There are alot better ways of dealing with this then going straight for the throat.

    43. Re:I understand... by mweier · · Score: 3, Funny

      Stinks bad, but there's no residue and it isn't harmful at all to you nor the environment. ... Just like Hippies :)
      --
      digital artist, 3D animator, web designer, and otherwise technological creative type....
    44. Re:I understand... by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quote from David Pratt, a CRC representative:

      "One of the things that struck us in relation to the video games industry is that while certain products that are out there, first aid kits and so on, that's certainly a problem--and our philosophy is that there's no emblem abuse that's too small to report, because you have to try to get them all" (full piece http://www.shacknews.com/extras/2006/020906_redcro ss_1.x)

      So within that context it sounds like the Red Cross would consider J&J a legitimate target in the future.

      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.

      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.

      J&J might be being asshats here, but the Red Cross is building up plenty of bad karma too and started the cross trademark fight. Doing good works does not give them a illy white get out of jail free card to be jerks themselves.

    45. Re:I understand... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    46. 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.

    47. Re:I understand... by GeckoX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow.

      That is nothing short of disgusting.

      Yes, to run that size of a charitable organization efficiently, you need someone very good at what they do, arguably better than most doing the same for commercial entities. However, that right person for the job is only right if they are also charitable in the work they do...for starters not taking a disgustingly large salary.

      Quick example: Scouts Canada (Yes, I'm Canadian) ~ 15 years ago or so decided to start paying themselves (top members of the organization that is, regional managers etc) "fair market value". Just about every low wage part timer involved was out of a job in very short order. It became either top rank with competitive pay, or pure volunteer. Money stopped trickling down to the local troops. Regional camps started closing as user fees skyrocketed. Scouts Canada is now 15 years later an empty hollow shell of it's former self. It's a total joke really.

      What's my point?

      Don't get involved with non profits if you personally expect to make a profit.

      Or rather, if you are a non profit charitable organization, do NOT hire people that expect to make large sums of money. Just Don't Do It. The people you will end up enticing into those jobs simply do not give a shit about the organization at that point...they're there for the compensation and nothing more.

      An ideal head of the ARC would be extremely capable in their field, possibly previously made very large salaries at commercial enterprises in the past, but is altruistic enough to simply want a reasonable salary knowing that anything more would be directly damaging the non profit they are there to run in the first place.

      I'd consider it a moral conflict of interest to hold that kind of position for a non profit and accept that kind of compensation.

      Sickening.

      --
      No Comment.
    48. Re:I understand... by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      Ok... so do they do a good job cleaning?

      I not tring to be sarcastic, just curious

    49. Re:I understand... by morethanapapercert · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Without trying to minimize your loss, or demean your experience in any way, to be fair to the ARC, they were trying to save another person's life that day. Your father was gone, but the remains had the potential to save others. I'm not clear on the exact limitations of organ transplants, specifically hearts, but I know that there is generally some very narrow window of time when the donor organ is still viable and that the closer the deadline the organ is removed, the lower the odds of success. As morbid and grotesque as it seems to the grieving family, doctors have good reasons for wanting to get at the organs while the donor body is still fresh, in some cases, perhaps still warm. I also understand that even when an organ donors card has been signed by the deceased, hospitals and doctors still prefer to confirm permission from the living next of kin. Your wife's request for "space" to come to terms with your loss was quite reasonable and understandable, but by the time your family had a chance to think about such things, the heart would likely be useless. From your description, you were the designated next of kin, so the hospital needed your specific word on the subject, not your wifes. The Red Cross merely assists the hospital in tracking down the next of kin using their call centre. MY wife is a rare blood type and is occasionally called into the hospital on an emergency basis by the Red Cross. As with organ donation, the Red Cross is calling at the request of the hospital staff because they are better set up to do so. It is not unusual for one Red Cross agent to call her at work, another to call the home and still another to call her at her parents home. They generally keep calling every hour on the hour until they either reach her in person or the hospital cancels the rare blood request. You may have been contacted by land line and by cell for a similar reason, one agent not knowing what the other is doing because there just wasn't time to exchange information between them.
        All that said, there are a few unfortunate things that occurred
      1) Even though your father never apparently signed an organ donors card, the medical staff still wanted his heart. Ethically, in the absence of a clear written agreement by the deceased, the staff are supposed to assume that he did NOT agree. The fact that they still pursued this suggest either they already knew there was a match with a waiting recipient (Something they normally can't determine until the heart has been removed) or they were guilty of far more wishful thinking then I am comfortable with in a medical organization. ("Maybe he was willing to donate, mentioned this to his family but never got around to filling out the card and maybe when we remove the heart it will turn out we can use it.")
      2)The pushiness of the first Red Cross agent, while somewhat understandable when there are lives on the line, is still unacceptable when dealing with a family in grief. Graphic descriptions are utterly unacceptable and inexcusable in those circumstances.
      3)There should be only one agent handling each transplant case and that agent needs to be far better trained in grief counseling. Bottom line, they are asking for a very personal kind of donation from a family that is at it's most vulnerable.

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    50. Re:I understand... by Molf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand, your response probably killed somebody.
      I don't think it's reasonable to cry about sensitivity when somebody's life is the cost. There are some levels of selfishness which are simply indefensible.
      Personally, a large part of me believes it should be illegal to refuse organ donation, just as it's illegal to stab some random bystander.

    51. Re:I understand... by Rimbo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Re-read the summary. This began because the Red Cross began starting to sell the logo, a logo that they do not own. J&J has every right to complain and be upset about this, and it's a statement of the ridiculousness of modern "intellectual property" law that after 120 years of peaceful coexistence, the Red Cross could provoke this.

      The reason they can do it is not because they have a tenable legal position, but because they know that if they go to trial, most people will have the same knee-jerk reaction you had, and thus they can get away with it.

    52. Re:I understand... by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I call bullshit. The Red cross does not have, and never has had, anything to do with organ transplantation or donations. My guess is you got a call from some other organization and got confused.

      They used to have a tissue donation division, but they spun it off a while ago and, to the best of my knowledge, didn't deal directly with individuals. We're talking skin and bone, not organs.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  2. ob by edittard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Prior heart. As in Lion, Richard the.

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    1. Re:ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      King Richard I didn't sell medical supplies. He was more into creating a demand for them.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. J&J might not want to push this by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:J&J might not want to push this by TheNicestGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The red cross symbol has become synonymous with 'First Aid' in the public mind.

      Which is exactly why the Red Cross has been putting a lot of effort for years into tightening their grip on that mark. Let's be clear about something, people. I know the knee-jerk reaction is to root for the charitable organization over the big corporation, but I've got to point out a little hypocrisy on the part of the Red Cross president. I have never before seen a cease-and-desist letter from Johnson & Johnson for the use of this mark. I have, however, seen them from the Red Cross.

      Some years ago I worked for a company that publishes clip art collections. We maintained a list of "bad elements" that slipped into our sources because it didn't occur to the artists that they were protected by IP law, but that we had received legal notices about. The red cross was one of our biggest offenders (alongside Weber-shaped grills, Olympic rings, cars that looked too much like Beetles, etc.). It was the ARC, not Johnson & Johnson, that made work for me converting them all to puke green. (That's the standard IP-neutral first aid symbol now, by the way: a butt-ugly fluorescent green cross.) I'd often wondered how Johnson & Johnson got away with it, and figured they must have some sort of agreement since they'd both been using it for so long.

      So you're right that the defensibility of ownership for either of them is a little iffy, but the fact that I've started to see that horrible green in more places means that it's starting to become known that somebody owns it. My gut tells me that it's usually the ARC that people think of (or get letters from), but if they're now starting to directly compete in the market with Johnson & Johnson, who knows which way a judge or jury would go?

    2. Re:J&J might not want to push this by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a most interesting point! Perhaps J&J bringing this case out will actually benefit the public. I can see BOTH the ARC and J&J losing rights to the mark since the IRC (International Red Cross) had been using the mark before either of the two.

      If they both lose, we all win.

  4. 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.
    1. Re:Classic case of trade mark infringment. by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is, ask anybody on the street what symbol they associate with Johnson and Johnson, and 95% will say, "Beats the hell outta me." Ask some more people what they associate with {and show them the red cross symbol}, and probably over half will say the Red Cross, while almost none will say Johnson and Johnson (the outliers being employees in their legal department). Ask people what the symbol means, and most will give any of a variety of answers in the category of medicine, while almost none (those J&J lawyers again) will say Johnson and Johnson products.

      The ARC could easily argue that J&J's trademark has become genericized, and if J&J continues to pursue the case, the ARC may be forced to do that. I don't think the ARC wants to have to do that, though, because the ICRC has at times been involved in trying to protect its own reserved use of the red cross symbol. I really don't see this case going to trial, because both sides have something to lose no matter what the outcome is.

    2. Re:Classic case of trade mark infringment. by bcmm · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
      Except that the emblems of the Red Cross have special status in international law. Their main purpose is to indicate buildings, vehicles and personal which are used solely for treating the injured and may not be attacked. From Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention (1864, last revision 1949):

      With the exception of the cases mentioned in the following paragraphs of the present Article, the emblem of the red cross on a white ground and the words " Red Cross" or " Geneva Cross " may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments, the personnel and material protected by the present Convention and other Conventions dealing with similar matters.
      Skipped a bit covering exactly how National Red Cross Societies (e.g. ARC) are allowed to use the emblems for purposes other than protection, during peacetime.

      As an exceptional measure, in conformity with national legislation and with the express permission of one of the National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies, the emblem of the Convention may be employed in time of peace to identify vehicles used as ambulances and to mark the position of aid stations exclusively assigned to the purpose of giving free treatment to the wounded or sick.
      So, if J&J are using the Red Cross emblem on stuff they are not giving away for free, they are violating the First Geneva Convention (one of the most important and widely respected international conventions, except in Guantanamo Bay).

      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 /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    3. Re:Classic case of trade mark infringment. by bcmm · · Score: 5, Informative
      Missed it first time round, but, Article 53 is even clearer:

      The use by individuals, societies, firms or companies either public or private, other than those entitled thereto under the present Convention, of the emblem or the designation " Red Cross " or " Geneva Cross " or any sign or designation constituting an imitation thereof, whatever the object of such use, and irrespective of the date of its adoption, shall be prohibited at all times.
      Skipped a bit about the Swiss flag...

      Nevertheless, such High Contracting Parties as were not party to the Geneva Convention of 27 July 1929, may grant to prior users of the emblems, designations, signs or marks designated in the first paragraph, a time limit not to exceed three years from the coming into force of the present Convention to discontinue such use provided that the said use shall not be such as would appear, in time of war, to confer the protection of the Convention.
      And Article 54:

      The High Contracting Parties shall, if their legislation is not already adequate, take measures necessary for the prevention and repression, at all times, of the abuses referred to under Article 53.
      So even if J&J had the trademark before this came into force, the US Government was legally required to stop them within three years of adopting the Convention. I don't know which revision introduced this, but it would seem that it's been illegal for J&J to use it since 1952 at the latest.

      The US signed the First Convention in 1882. I think that's all the directly relevant bits to this case. IANAL. :-)
      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    4. Re:Classic case of trade mark infringment. by jolyonr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Interesting, and possibly very valid in knocking-down J&J's trademark symbol. However, wouldn't the same thing prevent the ARC from licencing the logo for commercial use to others?

      Jolyon

      --


      Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
    5. Re:Classic case of trade mark infringment. by bentcd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But should a trademark last from 1887 to 2007? A trademark should last for so long as it remains useful to the public. If this is ten thousand years, then it is ten thousand years.
      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    6. Re:Classic case of trade mark infringment. by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that the emblems of the Red Cross have special status in international law. Their main purpose is to indicate buildings, vehicles and personal which are used solely for treating the injured and may not be attacked.

      True. But nowhere in the Geneva Convention is that special protection extended to commercial usage - it only describes the usage of the symbol on buildings, vehicles, and persons.
       
       

      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.

      It seems to me that you should consider what the Convention says, not what you wish it says.
  5. 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.

    --
    My blog
    1. Re:Originality? by daeg · · Score: 2, Informative

      The thing is, where exactly is the red cross J+J mark used? I don't see it on their website, www.jnj.com. I don't see it on a few J+J products I looked at in my bathroom cabinet, either. Their primary mark is Johnson + Johnson in a cursive script. The only thing remotely close to a block letter 'cross' (or 'plus') symbol is the '+' between 'Johnson' and 'Johnson', and it doesn't resemble the Red Cross mark at all and I have never seen the J+J '+' by itself.

    2. Re:Originality? by nazh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Their First Aid products uses the cross, you can find it on their Band-Aid site.

    3. Re:Originality? by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think if they really go to court over it, J+J might stand a chance of losing that trademark, IMHO.

      I honestly don't think such a ruling would bother J&J nearly as much as it would bother ARC.

      The former may have the rights to it, but never really enforced it. The later has, for most of its modern history, acted more like SCO than a "charitable" organization dedicated to relieving human suffering - Ask a Korean or Vietnam vet their opinion of the Red Cross; prepare to catch an earful, though, because you won't hear much good about them.

      Declaring genericide on this particular trademark would make almost everyone happy except the ARC, who doesn't actually have the rights to it in the first place.

  6. Switzerland by Tiberius_Fel · · Score: 4, Funny

    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/
    1. Re:Switzerland by Tiberius_Fel · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am well aware of what Switzerland's flag looks like, but just switching the colours would make it slightly different (hence, derivative work). But this was a joke, which I somehow get the impression you missed. :)

      --
      Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
    2. Re:Switzerland by the+agent+man · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    3. Re:Switzerland by Tiberius_Fel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gah, I was unclear again. My line about Switzerland suing was the joke. I believed he was serious. :-) And I can read German, actually. I'll translate the relevant part of the "Das Rote Kreuz" section: The Red Cross During the founding of the International Committees of the Red Cross, on the Initiative of Henri Dunant and General Dufour, in 1864 Dufour suggested the reversal of the Swiss Cross (Red on White Background) as the emblem.

      --
      Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
    4. Re:Switzerland by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      the Swiss were already using a white cross in a red field.
      The french army liked the original and the inverse. They couldn't decide between them so they compromised on a white cross on a white field.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  7. Actually this case is legit by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Considering the Red Cross LICENSED the trademark to 4 different for profit medical device companies (i.e. J&J's competitors!)

    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 . . .
    1. Re:Actually this case is legit by k_187 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly, they aren't suing ARC for using a red cross. They're suing ARC for putting its red cross on the stuff that J&J's competitors sell.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    2. Re:Actually this case is legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Its too late guys. They won't read the article or have a clue what the real issue is. They'll just rant and rave about evil corporations. They read these stupid 'headlines' and then mouth off.

  8. Radio Shack sues for circle-R use by G4from128k · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  9. Misleading Summary—Not Just Infringement by danaris · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Misleading Summary—Not Just Infringement by fotbr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doesn't matter where the profits went. If the relicensing broke a contract, J&J has the right to sue based on that breach of contract.

    2. Re:Misleading Summary—Not Just Infringement by mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The question to me is whether J+J even had any rights to register the trademark, seeing as how it was already an established and protected symbol in Geneva conventions well before J+J registered it (1864).

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  10. According to Wikipedia by rainlord · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  11. Red Cross' own fault? by Xest · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just to put a different perspective on things:

    http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/11/canadian_red_ cross_v.html

    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.

  12. Bad Strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  13. Maybe Switzerland should sue J&J by CaptainZapp · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The Red Cross was founded by Henri Dunant in Geneva and the symbol is actually based on the Swiss flag (it's the negative thereof). Since Switzerland was (arguably) founded in 1291 it should sue Johnson & Johnson for the flagrant abuse of a national mark for over a century.

    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

  14. Re:Wow... by dwarfking · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  15. The case boils down to two questions, AFAIK by Valdrax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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").
    1. Re:The case boils down to two questions, AFAIK by Junta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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. I just want to mention that Kleenex and Xerox are *not* yet legally genericized. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_ genericized_trademarks). Note they appear under the 'at risk' category, but still not in public domain. Escalator is an example of a truly generecized trademark.

      As to other things, I can see how it comes about that ARC is being sued as they have started to go to J&J competitors to allow use of the red cross for products, and the previous understanding is therefore being violated. It seems like early on some sort of agreement was reached that both ARC and J&J could use the symbol, but for different applications. In this case, medical supplies and charity medical aid seem *really* close and hard to distinguish, so it gets a bit strange. It might be the case that if J&J started a for-profit blood-blank with big red crosses on their trucks, that ARC could sue them. Kinda like how Apple computers and music *were* trademarked in their separate industries, and neither was legally allowed to infringe on the other (of course, that all changed).r
      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  16. Let the Swiss sue J&J by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... 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.

    1. Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J by UltraDerek · · Score: 5, Informative

      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).

    2. Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They agreed to JnJ's use of the cross logo, as you said, "for certain medical products", but that doesn't mean that JnJ all of a sudden now has exclusive rights.

      Neither organization has exclusive rights to it - it is an internationally-accepted symbol, as per the Geneva Convention, a year prior to the trademark registration. That being the case, JnJ are out of line. They have no trademark rights except on those medical devices, and those trademark rights don't take away anyone else's rights to use the symbol.

      At this point in time neither JnJ nor the ARC has the right to license its use to others. They're both in the wrong, but JnJ is a lot more in the wrong - the IRC can at least claim that the symbol originated with them.

    3. Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J by UltraDerek · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J by HeroreV · · Score: 3, Funny

      But... but... the Red Cross does good stuff! How could you possibly ever support suing such nice people?! They're non-profit, so they should get to do whatever they want! So what if they are blatantly violating the law and destroying a company's trademark! Once you've done that much good stuff, haven't you earned the right to go around knocking over whatever you want?!

    5. Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J by john83 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      More to the point, J&J were established in 1886; the American Red Cross have been around five years longer. How the hell J&J claim any rights over a symbol used before they were established? And if yes, why the hell hasn't that law been changed yet?

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    6. Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J by vtcodger · · Score: 5, Informative
      ***International treaty establishes the prior claim and trumps any later claim by J&J***

      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
    7. Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J by gonzo67 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are forgetting one IMPORTANT thing..J&J use the mark for business and have an agreement with ARC that ARC uses it for NON-profit activities. ARC has recently SOLD licenses for use of the mark to OTHER BUSINESSES that compete with J&J. ARC did not have the legal right to sell the mark for use by businesses, especially those that compete with J&J.

    8. Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J by Tassach · · Score: 2, Informative

      [J&J] have no trademark rights except on those medical devices, and those trademark rights don't take away anyone else's rights to use the symbol And, if you had RTFA, that's just what J&J is suing ARC over -- the use of the Red Cross mark on exactly those medical devices for which it has the trademark. Sorry, but ARC is in the wrong here and are blatantly flouting their contractual agreements with J&J

      Don't fall in to the trap of assuming that because J&J is a for-profit corporation it is automatically evil, and that because ARC is non-profit they are automatically as pure as the driven snow. As corporations go, J&J is far from the worst. And while the ARC does do a lot of good things, they have a lot of problems, too. While they like to tout that they "only" have 9% overhead, that conveniently ignores a lot of highly questionable "relief" expenditures (EG massive overpayments to preferred vendors). And when it comes to generating revenue and defending their turf, ARC is just as vicious and underhanded as any big for-profit corporation.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    9. Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J by Miltazar · · Score: 2, Informative

      International Law isn't what is applicable here. This is United States law. JnJ have an trademark here in the United States on the Red Cross and, as others have pointed out here, licensed it to ARC for non-profit. It doesn't matter what the Geneva Convention said, its still not relevant in an US Trademark dispute. Not to mention if I remember correctly the Geneva Convention talks about a red cross on white, whereas this dispute is on a red cross in general. JnJ is in the right here, the ARC are sub-licensing out a trademark to competitors of JnJ despite agreeing not to use the trademark on any for-profit manner. Considering all the trademark disputes red cross has brought up about games and others using the red cross for innocent purposes this is their due payback. --milt

      --
      "Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?"
  17. "Saint"? Oh please. by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. 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
    2. 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.
    3. Re:"Saint"? Oh please. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The blood products branch MUST make money to do what they do, for processing blood products is quite expensive, and heavily regulated by the FDA.

      In my hometown, there was such a backlash in the medical community about the outrageous prices that the Red Cross charged for blood, and the fact that they'd randomly shuffle blood products around the country, that someone opened a community-based donation center. It's become the de-facto blood source for that city. Donate blood and a local recipient gets it. Get blood and know that it came from your neighbor. All this at a fraction of the price that the Red Cross charged.

      Others seem to be able to do it for less, so I don't really buy that argument.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  18. Regardless of the legal merits of this case... by opaqueice · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...suing the Red Cross for trademark infringement is unbelievably stupid. Few people are going to bother to RTFA and find out that there might actually be some legitimate dispute here. Instead, they're simply going to hear that a huge rich multinational drug company is suing a charitable organization to stop them from using their own symbol. It's hard to imagine worse PR than that. Whatever minimal financial gain a successful suit might bring will be massively outweighed by the bad publicity, possible boycotts, lowered employee morale, etc.

    It's fascinating how such incredibly bad decisions get made. Maybe they've hired Donald Rumsfeld as an advisor?

  19. News for who? by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  20. RTFA by cerelib · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  21. J&J Says They Made a Deal with ARC in 1895 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    From Reuters:

    Johnson & Johnson on Wednesday sued the American Red Cross over the use by the relief group and its partners of J&J's trademark red cross logo on first aid kits, hand sanitizer and medical gloves sold to the public.

    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.
  22. Leave it to kdawson to put on the spin by everphilski · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Leave it to kdawson to put on the spin by uglydog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the article, I didn't see that ARC licenses the trademark from J&J. Where are you getting that from?

    2. Re:Leave it to kdawson to put on the spin by Binestar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Its still non profit; the proceeds from the kids sold by the ARC go to disaster relief funds.

      As a parent I'm torn between feelings of outrage and a strange compulsion to donate my own children to the red cross...

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    3. Re:Leave it to kdawson to put on the spin by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2, Informative

      First, per others, the red cross symbol was created prior to J&J's trademark application by an international treaty organization, one that the US signed even. Second, this symbol goes back at least a thousand years, so I'm not sure that you can usurp a commonly used symbol for your own personal trademark, much like Microsoft is still trying futilely to claim the word "windows" as a trademark.

      J&J should never have been granted a Trademark on this in the first place, everything after that is irrelevant.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:Leave it to kdawson to put on the spin by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But how can you license a commonly used symbol? Can you license a crucifix? An ankh? A star of David? A pentagram?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  23. Re:Nice one big pharma by sYkSh0n3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Before we start bashing J&J, notice that they haven't done anything about it for 120 years. Only after "the ARC has begun licensing the symbol to third parties to use on fund-raising products such as home emergency kits." did they file this suit. I don't think they ever wanted to sue the ARC, just after they started licensing it out, did they have a problem with it.

    Though suing the ARC is a pretty stupid idea, (look at the hate(~mail) messages, it's already generated here on slashdot.)

  24. 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.
    1. Re:Red Cross is a scam anyway (not a troll) by LordKronos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People donate blood to them not realizing that they are selling it to hospitals at market value. Of course they sell it. Do you realize how expensive it is to test, process, store, and distribute blood. They'd go broke in no time flat if they just gave it away.

      You complain about not using money for a specific cause, but would you complain about the times when they give more to a cause than they get in donations for that cause? Where the hell do you think all that money comes from.

      You seem to have a misguided idea of what the concept of non-profit means. It doesn't mean they don't make a profit off of any specific activity. They are more than welcome to make huge profits of anything they do as long as those profits are used elsewhere charitably. The idea of being non-profit simply means any excess revenue isn't distributed to shareholders.

    2. Re:Red Cross is a scam anyway (not a troll) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Save that shit, please. Regurgitating an Ann Landers column and pretending it happened to you is pathetic, so tell your "grandfather" to shut his lying fucking mouth.

      "A persistent comment by many veterans of World War II is their memory of the American Red Cross selling "comfort items" such as toothpaste and cigarettes to the troops. The American Red Cross acknowledges that they did indeed sell such items, and the unfortunate repercussions have marred the agency's name for many years. In response to such allegations, the American Red Cross responded:[14]

              * At the request of the Secretary of War, the American Red Cross charged a nominal fee for coffee and doughnuts, as well as for lodging, barber and valet services, in stationary military installations overseas. It did not charge in mobile facilities such as Clubmobiles.

              * This request was made because other agencies working overseas were compelled to charge for similar items. Giving these items free to U.S. service members would, it was feared, demoralize Allied troops.

              * The official War Department recommendation was made in a letter dated May 20, 1942, written by Mr. Stimson, Secretary of War, and addressed to the Chairman of The American National Red Cross."

      This story always pops up, and it's always some jackass like you repeating a story that some other jackass told him. If you had said "In WW2 my gramps said..." then you'd have something, but even then your context is garbage.

      But Korea? Never happened. Either you or gramps is lying.

  25. Cue the Godfather music... by SCSI-Wan · · Score: 2, Funny

    After all it is a family company...

  26. Prior Art by SmithKrieg · · Score: 2, Informative

    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...

  27. Re:Hey moron! by Thrip · · Score: 5, Funny

    NUNS DON'T FIGHT. 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 ...
    --
    I'm awake! The answer is BONK!
  28. Re:Wasn't this dealt with a long time ago? by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Informative

    ~110 years ago, J&J licensed the red cross to the ARC provided it wasn't used for commercial products.

    So, it's not that J&J is suing the Red Cross over the Red Cross using a red cross, J&J is suing the Red Cross as the Red Cross licensed out the red cross symbol to be used in the commercial sale of medical products. Trademark law is quite clear in that you can have two or more different groups use the same symbol or name, so long as they are in different industries. With this licensing the Red Cross has done, they have put products competing with J&J into the medical industry, which violates J&J's trademark.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  29. Red Cross is older than the article states. by FellowConspirator · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  30. Not it isn't. At least outside the US. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  31. Why now? by nadia2004 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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?

    1. Re:Why now? by leamanc · · Score: 5, Informative

      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!
  32. Just change the name by TheAxeMaster · · Score: 5, Funny

    To the American Red Plus Sign. See? Not a cross.

    1. Re:Just change the name by ari+wins · · Score: 5, Funny

      This just in. Jesus is suing both companies, stating his clear association with the cross as grounds for an ex parte decision on royalties owed. His lawyers were heard to be discussing another possible suit, dealing with defamation of product trust concerning the blood the ARC has been collecting. Turns out, getting a transfusion won't in fact clear you of your sins. More at 11.

      --
      Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.
    2. Re:Just change the name by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was sticking to the old testament for most of the prophecies:

      Deut. 21:23 "Cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree"--which is why Israelites stoned people.

      Psalm 22 "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint"... "they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me."

      Zachariah 12:10 "and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him"

      Psalm 34:20 "He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken."

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    3. Re:Just change the name by TFGeditor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "For a very long time "X" was seen as a symbol for christ because of the cross. "

      Part of the reason is that the Greek alphabet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_alphabet letter "Chi" is represented by the symbol "X" and was the first letter in the Greek spelling of "Christ" (chi, rho, iota, sigma tau). It is also the basis for the Roman cross http://www.canterburypewter.com/mailers/chirho.htm established by Constantine, Rome's first Christian emporer; it was comprised of the Greek letters chi and rho, which resemble "X" and "P".

      --
      Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    4. Re:Just change the name by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Christians would have believed that the law was not subject to them (rather that a new more simple set of laws based on a relationship applied). It's complex, but essentially think of speeding in Virginia vs Montana a few years back. Virginia has a speedlimit of 55-60 on most roads. Exceeding this speed breaks the laws, however if a Virginia driver had vacationed in Montana they could have driven at any reasonable speed without breaking the law of either state. Since the law was fulfilled with Christ's death, the curse wouldn't apply (anymore than Virginia's speed limits) under the new law.

      As mentioned in the other reply, stoning had the advantage that it is difficult to tell who struck the killing blow, and reinforced the concept that under the old law, sin had to be paid by shed blood. It wasn't meant to be cute nor sweet. Both Jews and Christians believe that God is not trite, safe, nor cute, but just and loving enough to offer grace to those who ask. Unfortunatly, His representatives have too frequently been too much of the first group, or simply just without the tempering of love and grace. Remember the strongest words Jesus had were for the religous leaders of the time, who were burdening the people with a littany of impossible rules (that only existed to show that pleasing God was impossible through human effort alone).

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  33. Re:Hey moron! by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 3, Funny

    They both wear the same outfit.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  34. I don't understand... by Ginger_Chris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  35. Never realized... by Dash+Hash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  36. Red Cross is licensing the symbol... by Calaban9 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  37. Feh! by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  38. Red Cross not Sacrosanct by Baavgai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  39. It has many uses by Discoflamingo13 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:It has many uses by TobyRush · · Score: 3, Funny

      That was the day I discovered (and could never un-discover) that you can buy K-Y Jelly (TM) in 5 gallon drums.

      If you ever do find out a way to un-discover that, would you let me know?

      --
      Sam! If you will let me be,
      I will try them.
      You will see.
  40. You are missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You guys are missing the point about the Red Cross symbol.

    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_Conventi on

    J&J is going up against the Geneva Convention and International law. They are is not going to win this.

    1. Re:You are missing the point. by Vaakku · · Score: 2, Funny

      J&J is going up against the Geneva Convention and International law. They are is not going to win this. That's easy one. J&J is going to declare ACR as enemy combatant.
    2. Re:You are missing the point. by Mr+44 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      J&J is going up against the Geneva Convention and International law. They are is not going to win this.

      You were going great up until the end. It's the American Red Cross thats going agaisnt this by licensing (for profit) the red cross symbol. IMHO, J&J is actually in the right here. They have the exclusive (basically grandfathered) right to use the red cross on commercial products.

      Its the ARC that is diluting the value of the symbol to make money.
    3. Re:You are missing the point. by GeckoX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then maybe the ARC shouldn't be licensing the symbol out to commercial companies for a profit.

      When I first read this, I was very much thinking "Burn J&J, BURN". But the more I read up on it...J&J certainly shouldn't end up profiting from this by any means, and shouldn't be able to stop the ARC from using the symbol, HOWEVER, I'm really starting to think the ARC needs to smarten the hell up for the exact reasons you specify above.

      ARC are most certainly diluting their own symbol, J&J is just using that mistake as leverage for their own potential personal gains.

      Two wrongs don't make a right...hope the courts won't alter that math.

      --
      No Comment.
  41. A Slight Confusion by beadfulthings · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  42. Welcome by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  43. Though I don't have a death-wish. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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."
  44. Re:Hey moron! by Dan+D. · · Score: 2, Interesting
    They both wear the same outfit.

    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.