Johnson & Johnson sues Red Cross over…using the Red Cross

Published on August 9th, 2007

The red cross symbol is an icon of relief from disaster. For months, it has also been the subject of a festering disagreement between major American institutions: the health care company Johnson & Johnson and the American Red Cross.

The dispute over rights to the symbol erupted to the surface yesterday in federal court in Manhattan, where J.& J. sued the American Red Cross.

The two had shared the symbol amicably for more than 100 years — Johnson & Johnson on its commercial products and the American Red Cross as a symbol of its relief efforts on foreign battlefields and in disasters like floods and tornadoes.

Read through the whole article. The questions raised are complex and pointed.

I imagine the lawyers for each side are already figuring out where to invest their fees.

35 users responded in " Johnson & Johnson sues Red Cross over…using the Red Cross "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Dauragon88 said, on August 9th, 2007 at 8:05 am

Jesus should sue both of them.

# 2 Mister Mustard said, on August 9th, 2007 at 8:08 am

Yes, at first I thought “What kind of fucking assholes are those J&J guys?”. But after reading the news reports, and discovering that the Red Cross has been pimping their symbol (at a profit) for nail clippers, proctology gloves, dildos (coming soon, to a sex shop near you!), etc., it seems like maybe J&J has a point.

It’s one thing to try and shut down life-saving blood banks, it’s quite another to take on an organization that is shamelessly whoring out its symbol to make a buck. Is there a cafepress site we can go to where we can purchase “Red Cross” laundry detergent, wireless keyboards, 300-count bed sheets, and garden tools?

# 3 Improbus said, on August 9th, 2007 at 8:16 am

Was the Red Cross taken over by Republicans? Selling out seems to be their modus operandi.

# 4 JuryDuty said, on August 9th, 2007 at 8:17 am

After reading the article, I think J&J has a real case here. In short, J&J had the symbol first and agreed to let the AMC use it for relief efforts only. Now AMC has chosen to offer commercial products that compete with J&J but have the same symbol.

I think the AMC should change the logo slightly for its commercial products or stop producing them all together since they claim there’s hardly any profit there.

The funny thing is how the AMC is trying to make J&J look like the bad guys, saying that their commercial products would save lives. But clearly, the AMC has violated their contract here.

# 5 Steve said, on August 9th, 2007 at 8:55 am

The AMC have treated everyone I know who have needed them personally like shit so they can piss off.

# 6 flyingelvis said, on August 9th, 2007 at 9:06 am

my my, someone sure is cross.

# 7 Angel H. Wong said, on August 9th, 2007 at 9:14 am

Don’t forget the the 9/11 scandal where the AMC raised 1 billion in donations and then used not on the victims but on themselves.

# 8 Al said, on August 9th, 2007 at 9:19 am

Steve – AMC is a movie theatre chain which, if I have translated your ramblings correctly, treats your acquaintances poorly. ARC is what you are trying to hate today.

Anyway, Steve, ARC is mostly made up of volunteers. I assume you already get out of bed at 3AM to find housing for people whose house has burned down, that you fly across the country and miss your family for a month to serve flooding victims you have never met? If not, then maybe you should volunteer and make the ARC a better organization.

# 9 GregA said, on August 9th, 2007 at 9:40 am

I worked at a blood processing center for a year. I can assure everyone here who ever wondered…

I never once witnessed a vampire mafia stealing blood. Well, at least if there is a vampire mafia, they were not getting the blood from us.

# 10 James Hill said, on August 9th, 2007 at 9:51 am

#9 – Not blood, personality, which would explain your lack of one.

# 11 tcc3 said, on August 9th, 2007 at 9:59 am

I see James has moved from indiscriminate liberal bashing to below the belt personal attacks.

I for one an heartened that our blood supply is safe from the Vampire Mafia.

Or maybe thats just what Greg wants us to think….

# 12 GregA said, on August 9th, 2007 at 10:14 am

#11,

He is just bitter that I purchased Apple stock on the morning before the earnings report then sold it during the afterhours over hype spike and made big piles of cash.

Apple fanboy dude out there who bought Apple stock from me at at 151, thank you!!!

# 13 Eric said, on August 9th, 2007 at 10:32 am

The Red Cross has, of late, embroiled itself in controversy after controversy. 9/11, Katrina, FDA fines, J&J. This is not the glorious and selfless organization of yesteryear. Maybe it’s time they get smacked around a little bit and realize, their mission is to save lives, not to make money.

# 14 natefrog said, on August 9th, 2007 at 10:49 am

#10, James:

Not that your comment really means anything, coming from you…

# 15 Don said, on August 9th, 2007 at 11:30 am

Why doesn’t the RED CROSS simply work out a licensing deal with J&J to use the symbol.

It seems that J&J is in the right here. If 100% of the profits from the items were going to the Red Cross, I would crucify J&J. But in this situation, the Red Cross is being STUPID. Just because they are nice people doing charitable work, does NOT make them SMART or right all the time.

Don

# 16 Ryan said, on August 9th, 2007 at 11:58 am

@ 4

“In short, J&J had the symbol first and agreed to let the AMC use it for relief efforts only. ”

I don’t think that J & J had the symbol first. The Red Cross has been using “The Red Cross” since 1864 internationally and AMC was founded in 1881 in America and I bet they started to use the symbol right way.

# 17 Libertican said, on August 9th, 2007 at 12:01 pm

I support the American Red Cross in their disaster relief and blood bank operations. I do believe J&J does have a case here and it will be interesting to see if the court of public opinion will side with ARC long before the actual courts decide the case.

As for 9/11 and Katrina criticism, I believe it is unfair to describe it as scandal or controversy. Immediately after 9/11 the ARC setup a relief fund which collected hundreds of millions of dollars within days. Once the ARC realized that payouts to 9/11 families bordered on lottery-like millions, they announced that any future donations to the fund would be reserved for future disaster relief. Once Congress passed their own 9/11 Airline Protection Act, which added millions of payouts to victim’s families, the Red Cross held back more of the initial funds collected for future disaster relief. IMHO, a smart decision albeit without the option for a donator to request a refund if they so inclined.

As for Katrina, I’ve always felt that the media misunderstood the organizational challenges presented to both government and non-governmental parties to provide comprehensive relief to the Katrina affected areas. First, the geographic element was huge, an area the size of Great Britain were in need of relief. Second, both communication and transportation infrastructure were destroyed or crippled on a large scale. Third, the security issues involved with this operation were unheard of in the US. Media organizations descended on the affected area and reported on hotspots. If they felt threatened or helpless, they could leave unlike relief organizations who would be the target of desperate mobs. Add to the lingering criminal fraud of Katrina area residents and media coverage of ARC efforts outside the context of scale and you have “controversy”

Sorry for the long post, I’ve had that bottled up for a while and when I read 9/11 and Katrina criticism to undermine the whole organization, I blew.

Seriously, the American Red Cross has an incredible mission and I hope that Dvorak readers realize its value and donate. How many times have you watched breaking news of natural or man-made disasters with victims from any socio-economic background and the American Red Cross is already there providing assistance?

Just for the record, Michael Brown of FEMA was an idiot, but I believe that any bureaucratic entity would have been overwhelmed by this disaster but perhaps to a lesser degree.

# 18 Mr. Fusion said, on August 9th, 2007 at 1:53 pm

#17, A pretty fair essay except for a couple of misses.

The ARC collected the 9/11 money but didn’t “tell” anyone that they would use the entire amount for 9/11 issues. They collected a huge amount that could have staffed a relief center for a few decades. They correctly realized that donations to 9/11 would hamper future donations to other equally needy disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

If they felt threatened or helpless, they could leave unlike relief organizations who would be the target of desperate mobs. Add to the lingering criminal fraud of Katrina area residents

Several groups worked in the disaster area without any problems or security. It was FEMA that insisted only escorted relief groups could enter the effected areas.

Most of the fraud and gross incompetencies in the Katrina area are from contractors and government (especially FEMA) agencies. Personal fraud is a very small issue.

# 19 Jennifer said, on August 9th, 2007 at 1:57 pm

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.

# 20 Mr. Fusion said, on August 9th, 2007 at 2:01 pm

BTW, another black mark on the American Red Cross is the obscene salary of Martha Evens She earned over $650,000. Of course the Board of Directors later canned her.

Also, as the ARC is enacted by an Act of Congress, they are paid to provide relief efforts at disasters. While it is true that most are volunteers, not all are and not all of their money comes from donations.

# 21 MikeN said, on August 9th, 2007 at 3:44 pm

It’s hard to support the Red Cross for anything when they won’t allow the red star of david just as the red crescent is used.

# 22 Air Phloo said, on August 9th, 2007 at 3:52 pm

I’m not trying to side with the Red Cross or make any legal statement but it seems like to me J&J doesn’t really even use the symbol much anymore. Am I wrong? I don’t see it on their Band-aids boxes or Tylenol? Is it on their first aid products?

# 23 Stirling said, on August 9th, 2007 at 4:13 pm

I’m so ticked over this. Where can we draw the line on what constitutes an actual, ‘trade-markable’ symbol? It’s a plus sign! Watch out, math teachers and M*A*S*H*! And the Rojo.com white plus sign on a red background is just too close. That would fall under the copyright and trademark phrase ‘confusingly similar.’

I’ve noticed Volvo’s new symbol looks an awfully like the symbol for ‘male.’ I’m thinking a class-action suit: all males vs. Volvo.

I’m going to trademark an octagon and go after every state in this county that has a stop sign. Or maybe I’ll trademark a circle and insist that Japan changes their flag.

Give me a break!

# 24 joshua said, on August 10th, 2007 at 1:20 am

#8…Al….thanks, my white wall needed those 200 splashes of coffee I spit all over them reading your first sentance.

Fusion and Libertician got it all about right.

# 25 Steve said, on August 10th, 2007 at 3:36 am

#8 – Doh! That’s what I get for using #4s post…

#6 – I personally know one volunteer who went down LA for weeks after Katrina. He isn’t the reason I’m “cross”. The ARC has treated some of my family members like crap and that’s why I don’t give them a damn thing.

#17 – I hauled trailers down the Baton Rouge for FEMA within a week of Katrina because the local RV dealer could not find enough drivers. I volunteered and then found out we got paid for it. I my own vacation and used the money for expenses and gave the rest to the Salvation Army.

I can say that anyone who was not down there really should not complain about FEMA for not getting there immediately. We drove over 100 miles of interstate that had to be cleared of debris before it could be used. Fortunately for us it was cleared by the time we went through. I even saw pieces of equipment that they had left behind going through.

The pictures and video did not do it justice.

# 26 Mikey Benny said, on August 10th, 2007 at 6:23 am

My first impression was that J&J is not only wrong, but also certifiably insane. I calmed down and read the article just to get the facts. Basically, if the Red Cross were the plaintiff, then I have no qualms with J&J.

After reading the first paragraph, however, my initial feelings were confirmed: J&J is not only wrong, but also certifiably insane. The article states that “J.& J. sued the American Red Cross.”

There is no way they can come out ahead in this lawsuit. If they win, the perception (and reality) is that they fucked over the Red Cross… congratulations?! And this lawsuit will directly take money away from the Red Cross’s relief efforts, likely costing lives.

You know what? I never am this impassioned about anything, but now I must say this: fuck you, Johnson & Johnson. May the ones responsible for this suit burn in hell.

# 27 James Hill said, on August 10th, 2007 at 6:45 am

#14 – Your worship is noted.

# 28 Peter Brockmann said, on August 10th, 2007 at 7:30 am

re @ 4 comment: It doesn’t matter if the ARC started using the symbol before J&J because they agreed in a contract to limit their use of the symbol to a well defined usage, and granted the right to use it for drugs and bandages to J&J.

It’s possible that you could trademark the red cross as a computer or lawn furniture and not run afoul of either the ARC or J&J (unless they have products that use the symbol in those markets). It’s not a good idea though…

This law suit, despite the rhetoric of the ARC is about contracts and protection of intellectual property – the equity that J&J built into their use of the symbol for pharma and supplies is being eroded by the ARC’s licensing program: I think J&J will win.

Here’s how I’d expect the suit to end up as an out-of-court settlement:
ARC agrees to modify the licensing program to not include the symbol, J&J lets ARC keep the money the program has already generated. The licensees will have to restrict usage to the ARC words, or some new symbol associated with ARC endorsement, but not a red cross. I’d hate to think that the ARC will want or allow this to go to trial. J&J is curtailing the erosion of their trademark and is claiming the other $90 million the licensees & retailers make from these products.

# 29 Daniel said, on August 10th, 2007 at 10:46 am

Like #23 – When I first heard the story on NPR I thought to myself “why is J&J suiing for using the red cross? I’ve never seen it on any of their products.” A red cross is the last thing I think of when I think J&J – I usually think baby shampoo.

# 30 Jim said, on August 10th, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Is J & J going to sue the military for using it on rescue and medical vehicles? Wouldn’t it be a symbol in public domain if it is used (possible created) by the government?

# 31 megan said, on August 10th, 2007 at 5:58 pm

No, Johnson and JOhnson did not have the symbol first. The American Red Cross had the symbol as a part of the International Federation and was formed first. Five years later, Johnson and JOhnson asked the ARC to use their symbol. They, along with others were granted permission to use the symbol. Later, Congress gave the ARC exclusive rights to the symbol but grandfathered in Johnson and JOhnson. Unfortunately, now they are wanting the Red Cross. Don’t sue an organization that makes less than $10 million when Johnson and JOhnson makes over $5 billion. They are crazy!

# 32 megan said, on August 10th, 2007 at 6:00 pm

THE FACTS AND LEGAL ISSUES IN JOHNSON & JOHNSON SUIT AGAINST THE AMERICAN RED CROSS

Edited for brevity.

# 33 Julia Spencer said, on August 11th, 2007 at 9:03 am

Johnson & Johnson doesn’t own the Red Cross emblem – the 194 governments of the world that have ratified the Geneva Conventions do. J&J has been trying to exploit the universal awareness of this emblem from the start for its own gain. It started using the emblem long after the international and American Red Cross did and then snuck its trademark through before Congress met its obligations to prevent use beyond the military and Red Cross organizations. J&J’s limited “trademark” should be retired since they clearly don’t respect the humanitarian purpose of the Red Cross name and emblem.

# 34 SH said, on August 13th, 2007 at 10:43 am

A little clarification from someone who actually works for the Red Cross (me):

1. In the past year alone, my chapter has responded to something like 300 disasters (mostly fires) in just our service area. Let’s not forget that while the large-scale disasters like Katrina get all the press, most disasters are small and happen right in our own neighborhoods without ANY press coverage whatsoever.
2. Each person/family affected by a disaster receives a “comfort kit” that includes stuff like sweatsuits, soap, toothpaste, etc., along with an information packet with brochures on everything from mental health recovery to renter’s insurance. If someone is unable to return to their homes immediately (as in most cases) they also receive a sort of debit card from the Red Cross which can be used for food and clothing. For a family with kids, this card can contain about $350.
3. Because, of course, the comfort kits are nowhere near enough to help someone whose apartment building has just burned down, we also provide case management after a disaster, which can include things like working with new landlords to waive security deposits, and actually paying for security deposits in some cases. We also provide written referrals (each bearing the Red Cross emblem) for disaster victims to bring to other organizations in the area who may be able to provide long-term assistance.
4. Let’s not forget that the ARC is a non-profit org with a staff made up of 90% volunteers. So while some of the incoming money goes to a relatively few number of salaries (in comparison with a company like J&J), with the vast majority of any other income (from donations, sales from first aid & preparedness kits, CPR classes, etc.) going towards disaster preparedness and relief activities. In other words, no matter how much the Red Cross is making from licensing the emblem to retailers who sell preparedness kits (kits which few people are motivated enough to put together on their own), that money is not ging towards lining the pockets of rich executives. It is going back into the Red Cross to help families in YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD prepare for and recover from disasters. While Red Cross services are free to all disaster victims, they are expensive for the Red Cross to provide.
5. The Red Cross did not steal money from 9/11 donations. How can an organization steal its own donations, anyway? The money is still used to support survivors and victims. If there had been any overflow it would have been used for disaster relief. Those who were kind enough to donate to the Red Cross after 9/11 put their trust into the organization that we’d use the money appropriately and wherever it was most needed, and it was. Just for the record.
6. The Red Cross and J&J have not only amicably shared the emblem for 100 years, but they have, in fact, actually teamed up in past years to fight OTHER organizations’ unauthorized use of the emblem.

Just trying to set the record straight!

# 35 Stacy said, on August 15th, 2007 at 6:21 am

First of all…how horrible are all you people who complain about the Red Cross using a Red Cross. Red Cross was founded first but since they were chartered after J&J was established you think they have a case. Yes the Red Cross is making money from those but so are the partners they are in with. What they do with the money is not Red Cross’ problem; however, for every dollar $.91 goes into humanitarian aid! If you were in a hurricane and the Red Cross helped you like they do so many other people, would you all feel the same way? What if you needed blood? What if you needed food? So of you talk about Jesus…Jesus and God said “Help your fellow people” that’s what the Red Cross does. So if you needed blood would anyone from J&J give it to you? Or if you were in a hurricane would J&J help you? Think long an hard about which side you take. Red Cross is a non-profit organization and thus, the money goes to the people who need it. I wonder if J& J donates to Red Cross…and even if they did – they only did it for appearances and tax write offs. The government and people in this country need to get there priorities straight. Leaving an organization like the Red Cross out there by all you people…is harsh and cruel. I refuse to by J&J products due to the slander of the Red Cross. The name is represented by the symbol. How can they be expected to pay J&J for profits when they were give to humanitarian aid!!! Red Cross is not a government agency at all so they get funding through donation and these efforts. The Red Cross also aids in the support of the troops—if they need to get home for a familty emergency and have to money, the Red Cross loans them that money. If you need to reach a loved on who is a soldier, the Red Cross can do that for you. The Red Cross trains many people who are certified in CPR, First Aid, Lifeguarding, etc. Those people save lives and one day someone who has had there training may ave you one day!

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!