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.

I understand...

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!"

Re:I understand...

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

Re:I understand...

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

Re:I understand...

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

Re:I understand...

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.

Re:Let the Swiss sue J&J

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).

ob

Prior heart. As in Lion, Richard the.

Classic case of trade mark infringment.

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.

Actually this case is legit

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.

Re:Classic case of trade mark infringment.

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 [wikisource.org] (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.

Re:Classic case of trade mark infringment.

Missed it first time round, but, Article 53 [wikisource.org] 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 [wikisource.org]:

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. :-)

Originality?

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.

Re:Originality?

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.

Red Cross is a scam anyway (not a troll)

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.

Switzerland

Great, now Switzerland will get involved and claim that the red cross is obviously a derivative work of their flag...

Re:Switzerland

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 [geschichte-schweiz.ch]

Radio Shack sues for circle-R use

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.

Misleading Summary—Not Just Infringement

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

News for who?

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?

J&J Says They Made a Deal with ARC in 1895

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.

Re:Wow...

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.

Re:J&J might not want to push this

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?

Re:J&J might not want to push this

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.

Leave it to kdawson to put on the spin

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.

Re:"Saint"? Oh please.

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!