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.
Jesus should sue both of them.
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?
Was the Red Cross taken over by Republicans? Selling out seems to be their modus operandi.
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.
The AMC have treated everyone I know who have needed them personally like shit so they can piss off.
my my, someone sure is cross.
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.
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.
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.
#9 – Not blood, personality, which would explain your lack of one.
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….
#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!!!
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.
#10, James:
Not that your comment really means anything, coming from you…
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
@ 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.
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.
#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.
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.
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.