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!?"
I'm presuming the court made the appropriate decision here, but it sounds as if the story's more complicated than a bunch of crazy lawyers filing a ridiculous lawsuit. The problem that Johnson & Johnson had was that the Red Cross had (apparently) started to commercially license its symbol to businesses that were probably in direct competition with J&J, and this would have been unforseen in the past when J&J probably saw and treated the Red Cross as a completely non-commercial organisation, with largely uncommercial products, and where any place it used the logo were at best for fundraising.
If it suddenly starts licensing its logo, though, then other companies can start using it to promote their own commercial products in the same domain as Johnson & Johnson in a way that could potentially confuse customers. In other words, any business that wants to start leeching from Johnson & Johnson's pre-existing brand recognition and loyalty might be able to throw a comparably cheap donation towards the Red Cross as a licensing fee, without having to negotiate at all with J&J, and make their commercial packaging potentially confusing with Johnson & Johnson's. This could be a real problem for J&J in the case of competitors who want to get their products shelved right next to it in supermarkets, for instance. Apart from the licensing fee, the Red Cross isn't even benefiting anywhere near as much as J&J might be losing.
I think the lawyers probably wanted to prevent the Red Cross from being able to give other businesses what could be a huge commercial advantage and steal its own good will, when under normal circumstances this would all be prevented by trademark law. Sure, J&J has probably benefited a lot from having a logo that looks like the Red Cross, but it sounds as if they've at least had it for as long as the Red Cross has.
The fact that it was a cross has nothing to do with religion (at least, not directly) and everything to do with Switzerland.
This is, of course, assuming you're being facetious, and ignoring the fact that those organizations do exist. Albeit only because other people fail to understand where the cross comes from, and themselves took it religiously.
I expect they would like England to change their flag too (though it's a little different, admittedly, since the red cross extends all the way to the edge of the white).
Max.
Given the J&J and the ARC have had been using the symbol for about as long as each other and had an agreement to share it, it's pretty cold of the ARC to be selling it to J&J's competitors.
The red cross is the swiss flag inverted. The Red Cross founder was swiss.
Red Star is a well known brand of baking yeast.
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,
The only other occasion I can think of off the top of my head where something like this happened is when the World Wrestling Federation tried to lawyer the (much older) World Wildlife Fund out of its right to use "WWF". What is it they call the giant men who grope each other these days? I can't recall, but it certainly doesn't have an "F" at the end of it.
Um, no, and you're really, really off base here.
They had an agreement that allowed the wrestling-WWF to use the "WWF" so long as they didn't step on the wildlife-WWF's toes in any way. Then after a while the wrestling-WWF started doing stuff that the wildlife-WWF didn't like as they got more "racy" and, well, basically turned into "let's see how far we can go!" type stuff (including, and I'm not kidding, an 80 year old former female wrestler giving birth to an adult human hand). The wildlife-WWF didn't want to be associated with that sort of junk(understandable at this point), and sued to have them stop using "WWF". At no point did the wrestling-WWF initiate any sort of lawyering against the wildlife-WWF. Now they call themselves "World Wrestling Entertainment." I mean, hell -- would YOU want to be associated with them?
The "WWE" has enough facts that make them look like a bunch of creeps that there's no need to spread falsehoods (even if it's not intentional) about them. It's basically Jackass in tights without the funny. I mean, really -- adult human hand birthing? And that's just ONE of the absurd things I can think of off the top of my head... and those are limited to just the few horrifically stupid and atrocious things I know of that they did. Fortunately, the stupid epidemic is wearing off and their ratings have been in decline. Unfortunately, their viewership seems to be watching American Idol instead...
The fact that it was a cross has nothing to do with religion (at least, not directly) and everything to do with Switzerland.
Are you joking? Of course, it does. The cross in the Swiss flag represents the Christian cross, and the people who picked it in 1863 were fully aware of that. The fact that the Red Cross not only added the Red Crescent as a symbol, but also in 2007 added the non-religions Red Crystal, shows that this is widely recognized to this day.
Personally, I wish they would make the Red Crystal standard and get rid of the two other symbols; retaining religious symbols in aid organizations perpetuates the misconception that religions have something to do with altruism.
...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.
> The red cross is the swiss flag inverted.
It came from a world where all the Swiss have little beards and make really bad chocolate.
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?"