Slashdot Mirror
Johnson & Johnson Loses Major Trademark Lawsuit
Dekortage writes "As previously discussed here, the health-products giant Johnson & Johnson sued the American Red Cross over use of the ubiquitous 'red cross' logo. J&J has now lost. The presiding judge said Johnson & Johnson's claim against the organization was doubtful because the manufacturer entered into a brand-sharing promotional agreement with the American Red Cross in 1986 — not to mention that the two organizations agreed to share the logo way back in 1895. Sounds like J&J may need to crack open some Tylenol and Band-Aids."
...check if they have a clue about public relations and brand image. I mean, did they consider at all that people might start to see J&J as "the assholes who bullied the Red Cross?"
Circumcision is child abuse.
When I think of a red cross, I immediately think of emergency relief, supplies, etc. I don't think of household products. What did Johnson & Johnson see in trying to seize (what I feel is) a pretty well established brand with a certain set of qualities (such as disaster aid)?
For some of us, particularly those of us who have been or are in the military, or the medical field, or first responders, the red cross means, in general, not a particular branding, nor the United States Red Cross nor the Red Cross International -- it means that in an emergency, when lives are on the line and blood and pain are at hand, that there is help. It's a beacon in the darkness that there is still hope.
That's what this is about. J&J tried to take that away. The Red Cross is an internationally agreed upon and (near, if not completely) a universally recognised sign that shouts, "Medical Care! MEDICAL CARE HERE!" Ask any random hundred or thousand people off the street what they think when they see a Red Cross on a White Field. I seriously doubt that Johnson and Johnson will be near the top of the list.
What J&J have done here that is so reprehensible is attempted to dilute that already prolific sign of medical care and hope, to commercialise what others already had a far better claim to. Shame on them, sirs. Shame and disgrace.
They might as well attempt to sue the Catholic Church for being (one of the two) oldest branches of Christianity over trademarks over Santa Claus. It would be exactly as nonsensical.
Signed,
Irate Med Student.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
" Mr. Monseau (Johnson & Johnson spokesperson) added, "The company does remain committed to the longstanding mission of the Red Cross to provide relief services." "
It's pretty cold for a company to claim it supports T.R.C.'s humanitarian cause, while suing them.
I'm glad this one got thrown out. How these companies keep getting away with trying to trademark common words or symbols is beyond me. And this one wasn't even as bad as the crap that Monster Cables keeps trying to pull. I mean, seriously, who would ever think that Monster Cable had anything to do with Fenway Park's Green Monster, the 1985 Chicago Bears, or Monster Energy Drink? Did they invent the word Monster? Should they sue the tabloids for calling child molesters monsters? I mean, hell, even Triple H has brought litigation against rapper The Game. Companies get away with this crap because 90% of the people they sue would rather settle out of court. But enough is enough. Judges need to start throwing that crap out.
No portion of this post may be rebroadcast without the express, written consent of Major League Baseball.
Hey man, no matter the outcome of this retarded Corp-Fight, my FLAs are still going to have big fat red crosses on big fat white backgrounds on them, and the Soldiers who need medical care will always know where to come.
Your argument that this retarded conflict between two Companies might somehow negatively affect American Soldiers and prevent them from obtaining needed medical care is absurd. Let those two fight it out. F your "sacred symbology" tirade. Nobody who's getting shot at, and shot, gives one shit about it.
Maybe this will sound jacked up, but I was hoping that J&J would win this case. Considering that both companies have been around for near equal amounts of time (one commercial and one non-commercial) for the Red Cross to decide they now want to licence their trademark like a commercial entity, validates J&J's point of view. J&J wasn't asking for the Red Cross to not use the "red cross", they just wanted them not to be able to licence it out (since it would reduce the value of their trademark), and in that case J&J is right.
Perhaps the ARC should have considered this application when negotiating in 1895 or so... or at the least recompense J&J for the dilution of their brand.
Regards,
MBC1977,
...and this is what J&J was contesting. J&J was more than happy to let the symbol be used for NON-PROFIT purposes, but the ARC has been using it to make money off of it, and PROHIBITING its use by other organizations!
I know it's easy to flame the big corporation (and I hate big corps more than the average slashdotter, as I've been working in such for many years before I redeemed my freedom), but in this particular case it's the ARC that's abusing a symbol that should be free of commercial ties. J&J let the ARC use it, but when the ARC started "subletting" it to make money, J&J had a problem with that.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
religions do have something to do with altruism.
Almost all religions mention altruism as a positive trait, and some even do something about it.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Let me make an analogy. Suppose that you are a restaurant occupying and operating in a building called The Slashdot House. You are a for-profit business. Now, for a century or so, you have had an amicable relationship with a non-profit soup kitchen which also operates out of the same building and using the same kitchen. The two of you are not in competition, since you are a for-profit business and they are a non-profit.
Now suppose you find out that the non-profit is suddenly selling meals, in violation of your previous peaceful agreement. Before, there was no chance that a reasonable person would get a meal at the soup kitchen and think that they were dealing with your restaurant. Now, the non-profit is telling people "Come to The Slashdot House and get nutritious healthy meals for affordable prices!" which is exactly what you've been advertising. When you protest that the agreement between you clearly held that they would not do commercial business and therefore not threaten your commercial business, they smirk and say "Guess again, the agreement only says we won't do commercial business for profit. Since we're not expecting to turn a profit, we can compete for your market all we want -- and if you take us to court, we'll smear you in the media as the nasty nasty profiteering people who tried to bully a saintly non-profit."
That's what happened here. The Red Cross was the one that made the decision to disturb the existing customary arrangement. Under that agreement, the Red Cross was using the red cross symbol as a logo, but only Johnson & Johnson were using it as a trademark (literally "mark of trade", remember: the symbol which identifies who it is that is taking responsibility for the product or service.) Then the Red Cross decided "hey, it's perfectly fine for us to start putting this logo on commercial products that compete with Johnson & Johnson who are already using this symbol in the trademark space! Even though our partners are certainly for-profit businesses, we're non-profit!" And believe me, when they started this lawsuit, the Red Cross's justification in the press was not "the Congressional charter granted us shortly before the end of the 19th century permitted us to use this logo for commercial purposes" or "in 1986 Johnson & Johnson entered into a promotional agreement with the Red Cross in which coupons from J&J products could be redeemed for donations to the Red Cross". It was "Bwaaaaaaaaaaah, look at dat nasty, nasty big commercial cowpowation! Dey picking on us widdle, widdle Wed Cross! They big! Us widdle! Don't you agwee that regardless of whatever the actual facts of the case are, dey must be da big, mean buwwies?"