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.
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.
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?
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!
#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.
#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.
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.
#14 – Your worship is noted.
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.
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.
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?
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!
THE FACTS AND LEGAL ISSUES IN JOHNSON & JOHNSON SUIT AGAINST THE AMERICAN RED CROSS
Edited for brevity.
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.
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!
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!