Johnson & Johnson Sues The American Red Cross Over "Red Cross" Symbol
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.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."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 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!)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam malesuada commodo erat et molestie. Duis pellentesque aliquam bibendum. Suspendisse venenatis lobortis eleifend. Mauris id est sed lectus convallis aliquam.
Post a comment
Comments:
Typical corporate American sueing culture...
In the UK Johnson and Johnson is advertised as "A family company" ... that friendly image seems erroneous.
They are justified because they are now SELLING products that compete against johnson and johnson. J&J legitamately own the trademark so they have a right to protect it.
i think it's kind of late to sue. did they just notice this?
red cross is also a non-profit corp. thats just not a good PR move on the part of J&J
The red cross has been around for longer. Plus, it's a damn symbol any idiot can draw.
It doesn't matter if the Red Cross has been around longer. It doesn't matter if the symbol is something you can draw.
J&J owns the copyright, and they have for a century. That's all you need to know.
I wonder if this would have any effect on video games, as many times "health packs" have the red cross on them, and those are commercial items.
wow. surprisingly the Red Cross comes out badly in this one.
@Echodork: Not copyright, trademark. Copyrights don't last a century -- corporate ones presently time out after 90 years. Trademarks, on the other hand, are specific to a field of business (a trademark on using the company name "Apple" for a recording studio doesn't stop someone from using the name "Apple" for a computer company -- but when the computer company starts getting into music, there's trouble), don't expire on their own, but can be invalidated for other reasons (simplified, if the trademark is associated with something other than the holder [such as the general line of products or field the holder is in rather than the specific company] in the public mind, it can be invalidated).
That latter bit is important. Do people think first of Johnson & Johnson when they see the red cross symbol on products? If not, J&J is taking a risk here when they bring their trademark into court, as The Red Cross may well try to have it invalidated.
@majortom1981: Okay, I'm glad I read your comment before I replied. I went back and read the article and you're right -J&J is being wronged here.
Unfortunately for them, most people aren't going to pay attention to that part.
sadly I think J&J is in the right. I was prepared to be outraged at the big bad drug company over the title though.
Hey....
What would happen if the Red Cross can't use a red cross? Would they change the name? Create a different looking red cross...or could it be too close to the J&J red cross to risk having a similar logo?
You don't have to register a logo/trademark/etc. in order to have the rights to it. If ARC has been using it before J&J then that means that they pretty much have the rights to it. You don't need a congressional charter to be considered as an established business, non-profit or otherwise.
If ARC gave J&J exclusive rights to use the logo then there's a problem, but the article doesn't seem to be too clear about that detail. Overall, from the little information that the article gives, I'd have to say that ARC sounds like it's going to win.
There is more to this story linked on the original article. [www.cbc.ca]
To steal a quote: "Hey, Red Cross. Switzerland called. It wants its flag back"
I don't know if the mentioned geneva convention laws apply to the us red cross, but even if it does, they should not be allowing the use of the red cross at all other than in an armed conflict. If we get de-sensitized to the image, it would be meaningless in war. I'm not sure how law allows J&J to own the image in one country, and not another.
@AlteredBeast: They already have some new emblems pending; I imagine that if they somehow lost the ability to use the Red Cross logo (which I doubt very much), they'd accelerate their switch to the Red Crypstal.
Hmm...interesting article.
In fact, the Red Cross emblem is an important symbol of humanitarian protection. It is recognized as such in both Canadian and international law which prohibit its unauthorized use. Misuse of this valued symbol distorts its meaning and its protective value for victims of conflict and the aid workers that assist them.
Now how would that thought apply to J&J's use of the red cross symbol. Does this "international law" trump J&J's stance?
Let's say I'm an unknown band aid (adhesive bandage) company, and I'm having a hard time selling my product - due mostly to the fact that I'm not as recognizable as, say, Johnson and Johnson.
In order to up sales I approach Red Cross. I ask Red Cross for permission to use their symbol in exchange for a hefty sum of money.
Soon enough my adhesive bandages are back on the shelf with the new label - the one that looks just like my competitor's, Johnson and Johnson. More people start buying my previously unknown brand and less of Johnson and Johnson's.
This is where I find the problem... It's not right for other companies to be making money off of Johnson and Johnson's trademark. Not only because it isn't theirs to begin with, but also because it will cause Johnson and Johnson to lose a possible large amount of money.
@majortom1981: I don't know if that trademark is protectable anymore anyhow. I see a red cross, and I think "medical supplies!", or maybe about the Red Cross organization. I don't think "Johnson & Johnson". (Yeah, video games; J&J and the Red Cross should have started fighting that one -- and maybe going for some affirmative promotion to tie their brand to themselves in the public eye -- much sooner).
Reap what you sow.
The Red Cross got its panties in a bunch because Smithsonian event organizers were using the universal symbol for First Aid on banners. Now every time there's an event on the National Mall it looks like an encampment of the Swiss guards...
@AlteredBeast: Funny you should mention that, as I remember reading a while back that the Red Cross was trying to get the red cross symbol taken out of video games.
I think they're going after Switzerland next.
Please realise that J&J had no problem with the red cross using the symbol. It was when they started selling products that competed against them thats when they had the problem.
Please keep that in mind.
Same here, when I see a first aid kit, I don't think "Oh, there is a Johnson and Johnson kit!". Again, it might be due to being brought up playing video games where the symbol is often used for health, but I'd say more people associate the symbo with the Red Cross (or just medical stuff in general) than J&J. In fact, I'd be willing to be most people think the red cross on J&J products was placed because it means "first aid".
And again...you see a "red cross" you think "Red Cross". It just makes sense.
Yeah, it looks like the American Red Cross is in the wrong here. But of course, the general public won't see it that way. All they see is.. big evil corporation trying to bully a non-profit organization. This should be an interesting case.
thats good, i wanted to donate to j&j but it was easier to give to the red cross. actually im even happier that greedy lawyers will get my red cross donation. beach front porsche parking is so more desirable than tents or water or crap like that...
Just a thought...as many of us can agree, the red cross symbol evokes the idea of "first aid", right? This pretty much established by the Red Cross use of the symbol, for medics in the military, and eventually on general first aid kits.
So we see the symbol, we think "first aid". Now hasn't J&J benifited from what the Red Cross has turned the symbol into? It is not through J&J's use of the symbol that we associate it with "first aid", but it is that association that may have subconsiously drove people to purchase J&J products.
The j&J website doesnt allow copying but their site states that the american red cross only had the rites to use the red cross symbol when used for NON PROFIT.
As soon as the red cross started selling products with the symbol on it is when it went against trademark law and the federal statute.
No matter what you think the american red cross is in the wrong. They did not have the right to liscence the sysmbol to companies for sale on things like nail clippers when j&j specifically is granted that right by u.s trademark law.
This has nothing to do with the red crosses non profit section. It only has to do with the red cross giving companies the right to use the symbol on products when it doesnt have that right to begin with.
Totally justified by J&J. Red Cross doesn't have the right to license it's trademark. It's not red cross who's selling the product, it's 3rd party vendors who donate a portion of their profit to Red Cross.
I've got a dog that J&J can come over and kick, if they want...
classic battle of copyright law vs. common sense
right up there with Shark vs. Alligator and Brown vs. Board of Ed
@no.no.notorious:
The offense in question was selling first-aid kits with a red cross on them, which the ARC only started three years ago, violating an agreement the company made with the ARC decades ago not to compete directly.
Johnson and Johnson is well within its rights to demand the Red Cross stop using its logo to sell products.
And they are probably right to insist that the ARC return all profits from sales to them. But that's kind of douche-y. Legal, but douche-y. (But stealing a trademark is douche-y as well, and not a strictly fund raising venture anyhow.)
Our American Red Cross donations should not be used in this dog fight; American Red Cross should simply respect intellectual property laws and back away.
There was a time several years ago where the latest and greatest WWII first person shooter had to change all of their medical vehicles in the game because they had a red cross on the side.
This was The Red Cross that hit the developers with the cease and desist!
I don't understand why the ARC legal team didn't consult with J&J; they had the years that it took to develop the products in to do it. Unless they did and the ARC moved ahead with everything anyways . . . It would have been much smarter to develop these lines with J&J; they still get portions of the profits and J&J would come out ahead with the good PR. I'd put the ARC in the wrong on this one.
If this goes to the mat, I'll bet the trademark is declared invalid. The Geneva Convention actually defines the red cross symbol WRT it's use in war. It's recognized throughout the world as the symbol for medical care. J&J and ARC are going to lose this one...
Eh, they both suck. All I remember about J&J is that Tylenol biz from 80's and as for the Red Cross, how they screwed up with all that 9/11 cash. Pox on both houses.
hilarious bo'berious
I have sooooo little sympathy for the US Red Cross. It's a parastatal agency with links to the US government, which withheld funds for several years from the international federation of red crosses (over a complex, but essentially political argument over symbols).
The US practice of licensing the Red Cross for commercial purposes (e.g. those stupid Eton radios) has completely undermined its counterparts efforts, however misguided, to enforce the use of the cross solely for humanitarian purposes. Plus they pay their CEO about $600 grand.
Maybe they could fire whichever team of marketing bozos keeps coming up with these ideas and send 'em to work in an aid warehouse. This is a huge reason why my Katrina donations went to United Way.
@Hossofcourse: i wholeheartedly agree! my donations better be going toward interest-free loans & free bags o' cash for arc execs so they can buy porsches - not their lawyers.
eh, who am i kidding. i stopped donating to the red cross when i found out they sell a large portion of their donated blood.
Why stop here Johnson & Johnson? Why dont you sue Switzerland and the Swiss Army company for using your cross logo too?
The Red Cross isn't a trademark, it's a federally protected symbol granted by Congressional Charter to the American National Red Cross. The symbol is also described in the treaties of Geneva, August 22, 1864, July 27, 1929 and August 12, 1949.
@Gari N. Corp: Nothing complex about it, the American National Red Cross withheld money from the International Committee of the Red Cross because of the ICRC's refusal to recognize the Magen David Adom.
Oh, and as a United Way partner agency, the Red Cross appreciates your support during Katrina.
@mac-phisto: The selling of donated blood is not unique to the Red Cross. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of a single blood collection company that gives blood away for free. It costs money to collect blood, money to process blood, and money to store and transport blood.
@Maurik: Family as in Mafia family?
Youse guys shouldn't mess with the Johnsons or someone could get hurt.
when i joined the airforce in 1954 there were several re-enlisties that had served in ww11.
we were paid once a month in cash....on paydays there was always a lt. collecting money for thed red cross...being new and in basic , i thought we had to contribute......the oldtimers flat out refused to give,,,,they said the red cross did nothing for .them that they didn't want money for...they would sell them coffee and donuts.these guys served in different units and theaters in the war, so they were not talking about the same red cross unit......
@acambras: I did a quick clearance search and I think you're in the clear. As long as you're not planning on using it for actual douches or clothing, that is. Otherwise you're going to have problems with the DOUCHE N' GO and BAIN DOUCHE marks. ; )
If you only address public recognition, I think the Red Cross, both historically and contemporarily, would come out on top of this. I didn't even know Johnson & Johnson used a red cross symbol on their products. I always thought the only recognizable 'symbol' Johnson & Johnson used was that cursive spelling of the names with the swirly 'et' in between.
J&J is justified from what I've read. American Red Cross went over the line and started licensing a trademark they don't own to other companies that may compete directly against J&J. The Red Cross has been doing a lot of stupid things for years but didn't come out to the public until 9/11.