Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

J&J sues Red Cross

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • J&J sues Red Cross

    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:
    BBC, News, BBC News, news online, world, uk, international, foreign, british, online, service

    Co-Founder, Apolyton Civilization Site
    Co-Owner/Webmaster, Top40-Charts.com | CTO, Apogee Information Systems
    giannopoulos.info: my non-mobile non-photo news & articles blog

  • #2
    What a group of geeks.
    Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
    "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
    He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

    Comment


    • #3
      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?!?!?
      Co-Founder, Apolyton Civilization Site
      Co-Owner/Webmaster, Top40-Charts.com | CTO, Apogee Information Systems
      giannopoulos.info: my non-mobile non-photo news & articles blog

      Comment


      • #4
        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).
        <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
        I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            I like the Red Cross, therefore J&J is crap organization and their argument is bollocks.
            Lysistrata: It comes down to this: Only we women can save Greece.
            Kalonike: Only we women? Poor Greece!

            Comment


            • #7
              Godless bastards!
              (\__/) Save a bunny, eat more Smurf!
              (='.'=) Sponsored by the National Smurfmeat Council
              (")_(") Smurf, the original blue meat! © 1999, patent pending, ® and ™ (except that "Smurf" bit)

              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yeah, after 110 years I would think that any license would have expired. Is there a time limit on trade marks?
                  "I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I bet Clara Barton is spinning in her grave.
                    Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                    "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                    He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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...
                        <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                        I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Will they sue ambulances and army medics too?
                          So get your Naomi Klein books and move it or I'll seriously bash your faces in! - Supercitizen to stupid students
                          Be kind to the nerdiest guy in school. He will be your boss when you've grown up!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            No, and that would be obvious if you read the article.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.
                              I've allways wanted to play "Russ Meyer's Civilization"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X