J&J sues Red Cross

[MarkG]

Legal fight over red cross symbol

Medical firm Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is suing the American Red Cross, alleging the charity has misused the famous red cross symbol for commercial purposes.

J&J said a deal with the charity's founder in 1895 gave it the "exclusive use" of the symbol as a trademark for drug, chemical and surgical products.

It said American Red Cross had violated this agreement by licensing the symbol to other firms to sell certain goods.

The charity described the lawsuit as "obscene".

It said many of the products at issue were health and safety kits and that profits from their sale had been used to support disaster-relief campaigns.

Licence dispute

The lawsuit asks for sales of disputed products - also including medical gloves, nail clippers, combs and toothbrushes - to be stopped and unsold items to be handed over to J&J.

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

The firm is also seeking damages equivalent to the value of such goods sold in supermarkets such as Wal-Mart and Target.

"After more than a century of strong co-operation 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," the firm said in a statement.

J&J, best known for its Band-Aid bandages and baby products, first used the symbol as a trademark in 1887, the same year it was incorporated as a business.

American Red Cross was founded in 1881 but did not receive a charter from the US Congress until 1900.

The lawsuit argues that the firm reached an agreement with the charity's founder Clara Barton about the commercial use of the symbol for certain products.

It maintains that the charter did not give the charity the right to engage in commercial activities which would conflict with a private company.

The two sides have been trying to resolve the dispute in private for several months and the lawsuit will bring unwelcome publicity for both parties.

'Sound case'

American Red Cross said allegations that it broke criminal statutes were "obscene", adding that it believed the firm's actions were financially motivated.

"Our outside lawyers have looked at this and think we are on sound ground," said Mark Everson, the charity's chief executive.

"We are helping Americans."

The red cross symbol was adopted by the forerunners to the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1863.

The symbol was chosen to denote respect for army medical services, first aid volunteers and victims of wars and armed conflicts around the world.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...ss/6938364.stm

[SlowwHand]

What a group of geeks.

[MarkG]

The lawsuit asks for sales of disputed products - also including medical gloves, nail clippers, combs and toothbrushes - to be stopped and unsold items to be handed over to J&J.

ok i get the request to stop sales. but hand over unsold items?!?!?

[snoopy369]

That sounds like a standard legal thing, to me. Probably not going to happen but in other trademark or IP infringement cases that's been the eventual ruling (take for example the copyright infringement case against the folks who were cutting out swear words in movies, they had to give their inventories back to the studios).

[Kuciwalker]

It said many of the products at issue were health and safety kits and that profits from their sale had been used to support disaster-relief campaigns.

That's not a very good defense.

[bipolarbear]

I like the Red Cross, therefore J&J is crap organization and their argument is bollocks.

[Straybow]

Godless bastards!

[Zkribbler]

If J&J paid good money for an exclusive license, I can understand why they would be upset if the Red Cross is continuing to grant more licenses.

I am puzzled by a license that's lasted over 110 years. That seems kinda long.

I can understand why J&J can ask for an injuction. I have no idea of what their legal basis is for asking for poessession of any product with a red cross on it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Yeah, after 110 years I would think that any license would have expired. Is there a time limit on trade marks?

[SlowwHand]

I bet Clara Barton is spinning in her grave.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Yeah, after 110 years I would think that any license would have expired. Is there a time limit on trade marks?

Of course not.

[snoopy369]

Definitely no trade mark time limit. I wonder if there's more to it than meets the eye here... other articles i've seen made it clear that the ARC has sold/licensed products to be sold for charitable purposes before with J&J not objecting, so it must be something more up front than this...

[Chemical Ollie]

Will they sue ambulances and army medics too?

[Kuciwalker]

No, and that would be obvious if you read the article.

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by snoopy369
That sounds like a standard legal thing, to me. Probably not going to happen but in other trademark or IP infringement cases that's been the eventual ruling (take for example the copyright infringement case against the folks who were cutting out swear words in movies, they had to give their inventories back to the studios).

Somehow, I read that as, they cut out the swear words, stored them someplace, and then needed to give them back? Sounds silly.

[a.kitman]

How is it even possible that you can have the red cross trademarked. Speaking out of my ass here of course but its seems kinda wrong.

Kuci i assume that you mean they cant sue ambulances cus of there non profit use of the symbol, but what about privately owned hospitals and such.

or am i missing something?

[Kuciwalker]

Sigh. J&J used the symbol for certain medical supplies, like bandages. The ARC holds the trademark for the symbol in the US, so J&J cut an exclusive deal with them. Now, the Red Cross is licensing the trademark to other vendors for the same items. So J&J sues, because they have the exclusive right to the symbol for those items.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by bipolarbear
I like the Red Cross, therefore J&J is crap organization and their argument is bollocks.

IIUC theyve done some nasty things themselves in the past. Racist stuff during the Mississippi Floods of 1927, but maybe Im misrembering the book Ive read. The US govt used the ARC as a quasigovernmental thingie for disaster relief.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

ok so in the cases of war, a red cross, is a symbol that sends a message to the enemy to not fire on this group, is owned by a corporation out for profit?? I see my fellow medical professionals feeling comfy in the line of fire

[Kuciwalker]

/me cries

[Winston]

I think having two johnsons in a corporation's name is freaky.

But then I've always been in favour of making the reds cross.

I say we let them fight it out with tourniquets.

[snoopy369]

I understand from that article and another I read that J&J is not licensing the symbol from ARC per se, but sort of co-owns it. They came to a deal in 1887 with Clara Barton (in OP) as to its use, because they presumably both laid claim to the symbol.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I understand from that article and another I read that J&J is not licensing the symbol from ARC per se, but sort of co-owns it. They came to a deal in 1887 with Clara Barton (in OP) as to its use, because they presumably both laid claim to the symbol.

That sounds about right. J&J got the rights to it for drug, chemical, and surgical products and the Red Cross got it for just about everything else. Bad form for the Red Cross to try to re-neg on the deal by licensing out the J&J rights to others.

[SlowwHand]

When did you last contribute to The American Red Cross?
The question is directed to anyone, so no one get excited.

[Japher]

Does J&J want all the Red Cross jeeps that are bouncing around Iraq, Africa, and other nations helping people in need too? IMO, I think this shines a bad light on an organization that is right now running an add campaign stating how much they care about the public and how their employees work for the betterment of society. Makes that all seem like BS.

Oh, also not a good time to start a nationally spotlighted lawsuit when they are laying of 2% of their global pharma workforce...

[Provost Harrison]

This is ****witted and bad publicity for the company. Are the corporate elite getting so greedy and shortsighted these days?

[snoopy369]

Well, if they want the trademark to remain theirs, they are required by law to defend it. It is not a choice. If they do not defend it, and ARC continues to misuse it (allegedly), then J&J loses the trademark protection, as I understand trademark law...

[Provost Harrison]

After 110 years it should be defunct anyway.

[Kuciwalker]

Trademarks don't become defunct, by design. It would be very silly.

Why is it that ~80% of the people in this thread appear completely clueless about trademarks?

[Kuciwalker]

A quick lesson, everyone:

Trademarks don't exists for the sake of businesses, they exist to help consumers. By giving a business exclusive use of a mark that they put on their products (their trade mark), it permits consumers to know that the product they purchased was really made by the manufacturer they believe.

Wiki has a pretty good explanation if you want more detail.