Johnson & Johnson has held the exclusive right to use the “red cross” symbol for commercial purposes for more than 100 years, and is now suing the American Red Cross because it says the ARC is using its trademark in a commercial way. From CBC:
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, marked the breakdown of months of behind-the-scenes negotiations and prompted an angry response from the Red Cross.
“For a multibillion-dollar drug company to claim that the Red Cross violated a criminal statute … simply so that J&J can make more money, is obscene,” said Mark Everson, the Red Cross president.
Johnson & Johnson began using the red cross design as a trademark in 1887 — six years after the creation of the American Red Cross but before it received its congressional charter in 1900.
The lawsuit contends that the charter did not empower the Red Cross to engage in commercial activities competing with a private business.
“After more than a century of strong cooperation 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,” Johnson & Johnson said in a statement.
The ARC says that the products in question help Americans get ready for emergencies and the money goes to help the Red Cross’ relief efforts.
“The Red Cross products that J&J wants to take away from consumers … are those that help Americans get prepared for life’s emergencies,” Everson said. “I hope that the courts and Congress will not allow Johnson & Johnson to bully the American Red Cross.”
Children! Can you please get along?
Drug giant seeing red over Red Cross emblem [CBC] (Thanks, sabler!)
More From Consumerist
-
Lawsuit Accuses Big Pharma Of Using Bogus Expiration Dates To Trick Customers Into Buying More Meds
-
Ousted Duke Energy CEO Says He Had No Idea He’d Only Have The Job For 20 Minutes
-
‘Today’ Show Aptly Notes That Wisconsin Senator Will No Longer Be Running JCPenney
-
Johnson & Johnson Promises To Kick All Harsh Chemicals To The Curb By End Of 2015
-
Pepsi's Amp, Monster & 5-Hour Energy Drinks Under Investigation For Calling Beverages Dietary Supplements
@MSQUARED
haha! hilarious!
@hop: No, they weren’t talking about different ARC units. One of the Red Cross’s biggest black eyes from the WWII/Korea era comes from charging GIs for certain items at Red Cross canteens. This came about at the request of the Pentagon. You can find out more about this either on the ARC website or in their Wikipedia entry.
I find it more annoying that trademarks are granted when the symbol in question is something so basic. It’s like trademarking an ampersand ‘@’. If it’s something I can make without lifting a pen more than twice, it shouldn’t be allowed to be trademarked. Kind of like when people try to copyright simple phrases. “Just do it” for example. Stupid time- and paper-wasting exercises in corporate law.
@mechanismatic:
While “public recognition” is not the only the thing considered in complex trademark infringement cases, an interesting twist to stories like these is that, in addition to expert survey evidence, “anecdotal” evidence of consumer opinion offered by the parties is sometimes considered by the Patent & Trademark Office, by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and by the courts to evaluate likelihood of confusion of the marks involved.
So the comments we’re writing — especially at a site visited by self-proclaimed “consumerists” — could well find their way into court documents.
That crazy Internet!
@andrewsmash: I think you might be confusing trademark and copyright law. The phrase “Just Do It” itself isn’t subject to copyright protection. It is, as you say, too simple — so simple that the idea and its expression are merged. Copyright law has several such limitations that balance free speech and IP rights.
As a trademark, however, “Just Do It” is a powerful indicator of source — and this is the point of trademark protection. When we see or hear the phrase “Just Do It,” we think of Nike. If Reebok or Converse started using this phrase in their promotional materials, that could easily confuse customers or dilute Nike’s brand. Unlike with copyrights, there is no trademark “too small” because simple copying will not give the trademark owner a right of action.
@cornish: yes, but no other blood collection company controls the same “market share” as arc & i’ve yet to see one of them in the media guilting people into donating. “we’re at critical levels in our blood supply!” what exactly does that translate into?
my problem is the manipulation of the facts under the guise of charity & public good.
Here’s more background from the Chronicle of Philanthropy:
The New Brunswick, N.J., company said it has held the rights to use the Red Cross trademark on commercial products since 1887, before the formation of the American Red Cross. The American Red Cross has the rights only to use the trademark in connection with its nonprofit relief services, Johnson & Johnson claims.
Johnson & Johnson officials said they filed the suit against the American Red Cross only after the nonprofit organization declined to allow a mediator to resolve the dispute. “[Johnson & Johnson] was left with no choice but to seek protection of our trademark rights through the courts,” the company said in a statement released this morning.
The American Red Cross, however, argues that Johnson & Johnson’s lawsuit is an attempt to interfere with its ability to fulfill its mission.
“The Red Cross products that J&J wants to take away from consumers and have destroyed are those that help Americans get prepared for life’s emergencies,” Mr. Everson said. “I hope that the courts and Congress will not allow Johnson & Johnson to bully the American Red Cross.”
@Maurik:
That’s S C Johnson. A different company.
@majortom1981:
Just because the shysters at J&J put up a notice that nothing from their site may be copied makes that true!
There is the fair use rule that allows portions to be used.
Plus once something is filed in a lawsuit, you can quote it verbatim.
Just ask $cientology about that one!
I am with J&J on this one.
FWIW: The Swiss flag is a white cross on a red background – exactly the opposite of the red cross logo.
@josh1701: exactly. so, who’s bullying who here?
i’ve got news for you folks: q-tips & band-aids will help you in an emergency just as well as “red cross brand cotton swabs” & “red cross brand bandages”.
I’m no fan of the Red Cross for sure. But I looked in my medicine cabinet and the only J&J product I have is Band-Aid brand Comfort Fit bandages – J&J’s sku #8137-004986.
Nowhere on the package is there a red cross – anywhere! The package says:
“BAND-AID is a registered trademark of Johnson & Johnson” and it also states: “The Swerve & Block design of this package is a trademark of Johnson & Johnson”.
Nothing about a red cross anywhere.
So my question is: If they aren’t using the symbol, can the Red Cross make the case that it should be invalidated?
@mac-phisto: You’re partially correct, the ARC’s biomedical services collect roughly 50% of the nation’s blood supply. Others, though, ride the guilt train too. We’re served my United Blood Services in my corner of the country and we frequently heard from UBS that their supply is critically low.
@acwnh: Yes, but they are related. The inverse of the Swiss Flag was originally declared in the 1864 Geneva Convention as a universal symbol of protection. It was later adopted by the ICRC in honor if it’s founder, Henri Dunant.
Does anybody have a list of J&J products so I can make sure not to buy them? I mean you’ve got to be kidding me! Going after a non-profit who has the sole purpose of helping those in need!
The Red Cross, valuable as it is, is clearly in the wrong here. They’re not just using another company’s trademark to compete with that company, they’re selling that trademark to third parties so those parties can profit. Not enough money is going to the charity to justify it, and many of the products are junk, which is going to hurt the red cross- more so if people star viewing them as just another business.
This is pretty weird. Clearly I can see J&J’s stance as far as competing products, but what had J&J used that logo for in recent memory?? The only logo I recognize of their’s is “Johnson’s…” in the fancy script.
@linedpaper: So because J&J are protecting their trademark you’re gonna boycott them? The ARC had no problem with this trademark until it decided to try to profit by selling their symbol to third parties. There was an agreement between them that ARC wouldn’t use it commercially, and they violated it. Companies have to protect their trademarks, else they open themselves up to even more subjective interpretations.
A similar thing happened with WWF a few years back. I had never realized the two WWFs and they “competed” overseas. There was an agreement between the two that the wrestling WWF wouldn’t do certain things overseas, which they ended up violating around 2000. The World Wildlife Foundation sued, won, and that’s why there’s a WWE now. They violated the agreement and can’t even us WWF here now.
I’m not really worried about who is right and who is wrong. A judge can work that out.
But I think that this is a bad PR move by J&J. And in the end, it may very well do damage to both entities.
J&J are like some old school cybersquatters.
It looks like they (J&J) do use the cross on their frist aid kits:
[i.a.cnn.net]
and [www.mypencil.com]
I volunteered with the Red Cross, buncha overpaid whiney administrators who wouldn’t know what to do in an emergency if it was happening in their own office. Put it on the list of organizations that used to do good things. Now they just cash checks. If it wasn’t for the good, solid volunteers who actually want to be able to go out and do the stuff in the Red Cross ads, the RC would be SOL because the administration certainly doesn’t want anything to do with getting up at 3am on Christmas eve to go to an apartment fire and make sure everyone in the building has a warm place to stay…oh, well, until the morning news crews show up and then the admins want to be there to make sure to ask for money…they need to pay the 6 figure salaries somehow.
reg
@msquared: Switzerland came first. The Swiss government gave Henri Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross, permission to use the Swiss flag with the colours reversed.
@andrewsmash: “@” is an at sign. “&” is an ampersand.
Wow. J&J must have had a REALLY bad year to stoop this low.
Didn’t the red cross attempt to sue the shit out of someone or some firm a little while back that was using the symbol? I know for a fact that they get all pissy if you put anything resembling a red cross and you happen to be a relief vehicle. I do believe this came up during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but I can’t be sure.
What bull.
In my Red Cross International Law class (I’ve been a volunteer since 1979), which I took a few years ago, we learned that there are three emblems in the US that are protected: Red Cross, Smokey the Bear, and Olympics. We learned, further, that the only reason Johnson & Johnson is allowed to use the Red Cross symbol is that they had it before the protection went into place. Nice thanks they give the Red Cross for Red Cross having allowed J&J to use the symbol all this time.
For shame.
If J&J starts using the red cross, I’ll still think of the Red Cross. What do they expect to win?
a href=”#c2090189″>acwnh beat me to it. The Swiss flag is the photo negative of the Red Cross symbol.
On one hand J&J might have the law on their side, but who allowed them to have the symbol when it was already in use by the Red Cross? Maybe their right isn’t legit based on that?
Wouldn’t it be just so popular if the Red Cross had to use the Red Crescent instead? ooo that would go over SO well.
“J&J owns the copyright, and they have for a century.”
I think that’s the problem right there.
@linedpaper: Just because they’re a non-profit doesn’t mean they get to do whatever they want.
The Red Cross should have fought Johnson&Johnson over the trademark a long time ago. They had it first but didn’t protection and now J&J has the legal right to it. It makes sense that they don’t want other companies using it on first aid products.
Although they did use it first, decades of letting J&J hold the trademark and even working with them over it’s use implies that they agree that J&J have the legal rights to it. This move by them to sell it’s use to other companies makes no sense.
It’s about time someone stuck it to American Red Cross. They have been mismanaged for decades, and their misdeeds have in recent years turned even uglier. It’s time for people to recognize the American Red Cross for the sham it is, and start giving money to true charities that REALLY help people.
Among the items that the Red Cross has lent their logo to: chlorine bleach. Because nothing says “first aid” like a poisonous liquid!
People, you can’t rely on an article for all the facts, there isn’t enough space. The legal documentation goes back nearly 100 years. The American Red Cross was granted the use of this emblem by Congress. The products being sold are NOT for profit, but for the continuance of the Congressionally mandated mission of the Red Cross. JNJ fails to mention the Barton Agreement they initially tried to enter into with Clara Barton, giving them permission to use the Red Cross, IF congress decided that JNJ couldn’t continue to jointly use the emblem any longer. Congress didn’t make that decision, but they were ready to make a plea deal 100 years ago.
Frankly, JNJ needs to spend less time harrassing humanitarian groups and more time researching cures for diseases, like alzheimers, which they seem to be afflicted with.
cue the birth of the red asterisk