J&J sues Red Cross

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
J&J's claim is probably only in the US, where only US trademarks matter.

J&J's products bear the same symbol when marketed in other countries.

J&J incorporated in 1887. Clara Barton's ARC established a relationship with the IRC in 1881. Clearly the ARC had a prior claim on the use of the symbol, thought the IRC's claim predates the ARC's claim. At the time when J&J began using the symbol they really hadn't the slightest legal defence for doing so other than the fact that the US legal system in the 1880s would have heavily favored the claim of a profit making company. Did the ARC clear their transaction with J&J with the IRC? Did their relationship with the IRC give them the right to dispose of the international entity's symbol? Did J&J pay the ARC for the use of its symbol or did it use the legal system to coerce the not for profit company into surrendering the right to what was legally its own property, or did the ARC give this right to J&j out of the goodness of its heart?

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Like i stated before i thought the red cross symbol goes back t0 the begining of wars when the medics were out in the open treating the injured!!! So as they wouldnt be fired upon..

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
J&J's products bear the same symbol when marketed in other countries.

Yes, but the claim is probably only in the US.

[Ben Kenobi]

Like i stated before i thought the red cross symbol goes back t0 the begining of wars when the medics were out in the open treating the injured!!! So as they wouldnt be fired upon..

Same here.

I am surprised that J and J haven't already thought it over by making their trademark just like the Red Cross, and that they don't derive certain benefits from their association.

[Ben Kenobi]

'Cause then any company can start to use it since the trademark ceases to exist. Suddenly all sorts of companies are using the red cross and J&J can't do a damn thing about it because it failed to protect its trademark.

No, it means that the trademark becomes the exclusive domain of the American Red Cross, where it belongs.

Just because J and J were too lazy to come up with their own design, doesn't mean they should be hassled by those with a prior claim, just because they are non-profit.

[Ben Kenobi]

and

Within the trademark system, a company that doesn't defend its trademarks is at a disadvantage relative to the others, obviously, since anyone can pass of shoddy goods as that company's.

And that is my point. Trademarks enable a company to establish brand loyalty, product differentiation and allows them to charge a higher price for their product and remain competitive. Ergo, the main benefit is to the company to defend their trademarks rather then the consumer.

J&J only holds the red cross trademark for certain classes of products, e.g. bandages. They have an agree with the ARC specifying this. The ARC recently started licensing the red cross mark for those products to other companies - J&J's competitors - despite the fact that the ARC does not own the right to use the mark on those products - J&J does. So J&J is suing the ARC for violating their trademark.

If the ARC leased the rights to J and J, then the ARC is permitted to lease the rights to others. Does J and J have an exclusivity contract?

From what I can see J and J should be happy that they have such an agreement, and ARC should simply stop leasing to J and J and deal only with their competitors.

It makes perfect sense to me J and J loses their competitive advantage when other competitors use the Red Cross because they lose both differentiation and brand loyalty. What they should do is market the J and J brand across all products rather then complaining about the Red Cross.

[Kuciwalker]

If the ARC leased the rights to J and J, then the ARC is permitted to lease the rights to others. Does J and J have an exclusivity contract?

Yes. Obviously. That's the entire point.

/me cries

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Like i stated before i thought the red cross symbol goes back t0 the begining of wars when the medics were out in the open treating the injured!!! So as they wouldnt be fired upon..

No, Henry Dunant started it in 1859, I think during one of the Wars of Italian Reunification. Prior to that medics might carry white flags when they sallied forth onto the field to pick up the dead and wounded.
The problem during the Wars of Italian Reunification is that the white flag is a traditional military banner in Italy with which Italians undertake their legendary tactical manuever, the rapid advance to the rear. The enemy was unable to distinguish the legitimate efforts of medics to alleviate suffering from an attempt by the Italians to deprive the enemy of an easy victory by vacating the field of battle, so Henry Dunant thought to distinguish his Red Cross medics by having them wear arms bands bearing the Red Cross, the color negative of the emblem of his native Switzerland, the white cross on a red field. He could have given his men the latter emblem, but he didn't want to alarm the Italians by making them think that they were being attacked in the rear by the Swiss.