Slashdot Mirror
American Red Cross Sued For Using a Red Cross
Swampash sends us a story that even this community may find hard to believe. Johnson & Johnson, the health-products giant that uses a red cross as its trademark, is suing the American Red Cross, demanding the charity halt its use of the red cross symbol on products it sells to the public. It seems J&J began using the trademark in 1887, 6 years after the Red Cross was formed, but 13 years before the charitable organization was chartered by Congress. Lately the ARC has begun licensing the symbol to third parties to use on fund-raising products such as home emergency kits.
You have to defend your trademark or lose it. But, come on this is a dog and pony show they WANT to people to look at J&J products and think "oh! the red cross!"
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
Prior heart. As in Lion, Richard the.
At the bottom of the
J&J have the trademark in the area of medicines and so on, and now the ARC is using that trademark to promote their own produces.
I think that J&J have the law on their side in this case. Of course, whether the law is good or not is a different debate (and those of you who know my politics will know my opinion on laws in general...).
This is hardly worthy of front page news, except for the fact that most people think the Red Cross is a good organisation. Doesn't make them immune from trademark law though.
I wank in the shower.
Does the Red Cross symbol even meet the standard for originality? It's been used for a long time by military organizations to denote an on-battlefield hospital, and international treaty prevents the attacking of anything near a white flag with a red cross on it.
I think if they really go to court over it, J+J might stand a chance of losing that trademark, IMHO.
But IANAL.
My blog
Great, now Switzerland will get involved and claim that the red cross is obviously a derivative work of their flag...
Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
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 . .
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.
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.
Just to put a different perspective on things:
_ cross_v.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/11/canadian_red
J&J could just be launching a pre-emptive strike, I support the Red Cross' work but have absolutely no sympathy for them here, what goes around comes around I suppose, I'd argue they brought this upon themselves when trying to aggressively suggest they have the sole rights to the red cross symbol, something which as an Englishman, who's flag is a red cross I find rather offensive.
The real danger here is that the court will rule that a red cross on a white background is a public domain symbol that NEITHER entity owns copyright on. It's a pretty old symbol (dating, arguably, to the crusades). If that happens, then J&J is worse off than not litigating.
The best result for both parties is to settle with some sort of agreement not to sue--then they both can claim they defended their trademark and it's used under license, without the danger of anyone using the symbol.
Frankly, though, I don't think that's socially optimal. It IS a bloody public domain symbol. How does one indicate on a sign where the first aid station is in a public place? That's right--red cross on a white background.
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
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.
... after all, the swiss flag is the same, except that the colors are inverted. An "obvious attempt to hide a blatant ripoff of Swiss cultural heritage".
Johnson and Johnson are just being dickheads.
On a more serious note - they don't have a case. The International Red Cross created the symbol in 1863, and it was recognized by the First Geneva Convention in 1864
International treaty establishes the prior claim and trumps any later claim by J&J.
hard-to-win-a-pissing-match-with-a-saint dept
Maybe J&J's backlash is because they're disgusted at how commercial and "profit" the Red Cross has become.
The Red Cross is no saint. If they were, they wouldn't be charging insane amounts of money for *donated* blood (which has an astoundingly poor rate of screening for HIV and other communicable diseases), refusing donations of material (Red Cross only accepts money) for disasters, and using any disaster as an excuse for a recruitment drive, even when they're not really needed.
In the months after September 11th, the ads were almost non-stop. Almost two billion dollars flowed in. Do you really think September 11th victims needed places to sleep, clothing, etc? And do you realize how much clothing and basic human needs $2BN takes care of?
And guess how much they did in Louisiana? Next to nothing, just like the feds...http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july- dec05/redcross_12-14.html
Basic problems, like not training their volunteers. I wonder where the money goes?
Please help metamoderate.
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?
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?
Wow, reading the posts so far seems to indicate that most people did not RTFA. This is not a simple trademark dispute. J&J and ARC had an agreement going back to the 1880's that seems to stipulate that J&J would have sole use of the red cross symbol for marketing commercial medical products (a business the ARC was not and did not intend to be in). The problem now is that the ARC is marketing products in stores, using the red cross symbol, that compete with J&J products. J&J sees this as a violation of the long-standing agreement between the two organizations even knowing that the profits feed back into the charity. At least this is my understanding of this situation.
Among other things, J&J asked the court to prohibit sales of those items and order the defendants to turn over unsold goods and related marketing materials and all monetary gains from sales of the disputed items, which are sold in stores such as Target and Wal-Mart.
In its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the maker of Band-Aids said it has for more than 100 years "owned exclusive trademark rights in the Red Cross Design for first aid and wound care products sold to the consuming public, including first aid kits."
J&J said American Red Cross founder Clara Barton in 1895 signed a deal with J&J agreeing and acknowledging the company's "exclusive use of a red cross as a trademark and otherwise for chemical, surgical, pharmaceutical goods of every description."
Until recently, the two sides have cooperated amicably in enforcing their respective rights, J&J said.
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.
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.
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.)
When my grandfather was in Korea, the Red Cross was there alright. They were there SELLING coffee and donuts to the soldiers. "Don't have any money, Shell-shocked G.I.? Tough shit. No donuts for you."
When my uncle died, we contacted the Red Cross because my father was in the field and part of their job was SUPPOSED to be contacting soldiers in the field in family emergencies. They bullshitted us around for a while and finally just told us that they couldn't help us. So we did what generations of military families and disaster victims have done when they realized the Rd Cross had no damn intention of helping them--we went through the government channels and did it that way.
I actively encourage people to NOT give money to the Red Cross. There are plenty of great charities out there but the Red Cross is not one of them.
This whole licensing agreement is just another money-making scheme for them. I just hope Johnson & Johnson wins their suit and screws them good.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I'm awake! The answer is BONK!
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.
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!
To the American Red Plus Sign. See? Not a cross.
They both wear the same outfit.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
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.
You guys are missing the point about the Red Cross symbol.
i on
The Red Cross is internationally recognized as a neutral body. Specifically if it's marked with a red cross on a white background, attacking, defacing, or generally being a dick to it is an international war crime.
This HAS to be protected. Period. There is no discussion on this matter -- the sanctity of the Red Cross / Crystal / Crescent is beyond paramount. These red cross workers have to be recognized internationally as neutral civilian aid workers, and any dilution of that isn't just sick and wrong, it's against international law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross
More specifically, the first Geneva Convention is the one that founded the Red Cross and defined it's emblem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Geneva_Convent
J&J is going up against the Geneva Convention and International law. They are is not going to win this.
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
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
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."
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.