J&J sues Red Cross

[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.