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.

“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!)


Edit Your Comment

  1. Dibbler says:

    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.

  2. Maurik says:

    Typical corporate American sueing culture…

    In the UK Johnson and Johnson is advertised as “A family company” … that friendly image seems erroneous.

  3. majortom1981 says:

    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.

  4. says:

    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

  5. Maurik says:

    The red cross has been around for longer. Plus, it’s a damn symbol any idiot can draw.

  6. Echodork says:

    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.

  7. AlteredBeast (blaming the OP one article at a time.) says:

    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.

  8. shoegazer says:

    wow. surprisingly the Red Cross comes out badly in this one.

  9. Charles Duffy says:

    @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.

  10. Youthier says:

    @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.

  11. Geekybiker says:

    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.

  12. AlteredBeast (blaming the OP one article at a time.) says:


    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?

  13. SOhp101 says:

    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.

  14. Charles Duffy says:
  15. Cowboys_fan says:

    There is more to this story linked on the original article. []

    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.

  16. Charles Duffy says:

    @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.

  17. AlteredBeast (blaming the OP one article at a time.) says:

    @Charles Duffy:

    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?

  18. greydiode says:

    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.

  19. Charles Duffy says:

    @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).

  20. Pelagius says:

    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…

  21. B says:

    @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.

  22. msquared says:

    I think they’re going after Switzerland next.

  23. majortom1981 says:

    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.

  24. AlteredBeast (blaming the OP one article at a time.) says:

    @Charles Duffy:

    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.

  25. LatherRinseRepeat says:

    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.

  26. bigvicproton says:

    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…

  27. AlteredBeast (blaming the OP one article at a time.) says:

    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.

  28. majortom1981 says:

    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.

  29. urban_ninjya says:

    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.

  30. Spamboy says:

    I’ve got a dog that J&J can come over and kick, if they want…

  31. MENDOZA!!!!! says:

    classic battle of copyright law vs. common sense

    right up there with Shark vs. Alligator and Brown vs. Board of Ed

  32. rdm7234 says:
    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.

  33. rdm7234 says:

    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.)

  34. Buran says:

    @Dibbler: Uh, ARC came first.

  35. Hoss says:

    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.

  36. 5h17h34d says:

    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!

  37. chinadoll724 says:

    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.

  38. pegr says:

    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…

  39. LionelEHutz says:

    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.

  40. mattbrown says:

    hilarious bo’berious

  41. Gari N. Corp says:

    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.

  42. acambras says:


    Here’s my question: Is there a trademark on the work “douche-y” ?

  43. mac-phisto says:

    @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.

  44. rdldr1 says:

    Why stop here Johnson & Johnson? Why dont you sue Switzerland and the Swiss Army company for using your cross logo too?

  45. cornish says:

    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.

  46. cornish says:

    @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.

  47. ColoradoShark says:

    @Maurik: Family as in Mafia family?

    Youse guys shouldn’t mess with the Johnsons or someone could get hurt.

  48. hop says:

    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……

  49. RogueSophist says:

    @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. ; )

  50. mechanismatic says:

    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.

  51. bnosach says:

    haha! hilarious!

  52. cornish says:

    @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.

  53. andrewsmash says:

    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.

  54. RogueSophist says:


    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!

  55. RogueSophist says:

    @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.

  56. mac-phisto says:

    @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.

  57. josh1701 says:

    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.”

  58. rrapynot says:


    That’s S C Johnson. A different company.

  59. Greasy Thumb Guzik says:

    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!

  60. Stan LS says:

    I am with J&J on this one.

  61. acwnh says:

    FWIW: The Swiss flag is a white cross on a red background – exactly the opposite of the red cross logo.

  62. mac-phisto says:

    @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”.

  63. PDQ2 says:

    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?

  64. cornish says:

    @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.

  65. linedpaper says:

    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!

  66. infinitysnake says:

    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.

  67. Optimistic Prime says:

    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.

  68. The Walking Eye says:

    @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.

  69. Bryan Price says:

    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.

  70. BrockBrockman says:

    J&J are like some old school cybersquatters.

  71. formergr says:

    It looks like they (J&J) do use the cross on their frist aid kits:
    and []

  72. legotech says:

    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.


  73. palaste says:

    @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.

  74. palaste says:

    @andrewsmash: “@” is an at sign. “&” is an ampersand.

  75. Cap'n Jack says:

    Wow. J&J must have had a REALLY bad year to stoop this low.

  76. Phuturephunk says:

    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.

  77. RebekahSue says:

    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.

  78. gorckat says:

    If J&J starts using the red cross, I’ll still think of the Red Cross. What do they expect to win?

  79. synergy says:

    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.

  80. “J&J owns the copyright, and they have for a century.”

    I think that’s the problem right there.

  81. @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.

  82. DJFelix says:

    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.

  83. ChristopherDavis says:

    Among the items that the Red Cross has lent their logo to: chlorine bleach. Because nothing says “first aid” like a poisonous liquid!

  84. tsmithphx says:

    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.

  85. mandiejackson says:

    cue the birth of the red asterisk