This is not my field of law, but I am pretty darn sure that "Geneva Convention" recognition is not the same as having a trademark registered in the good ol' U.S. of A. Whether it should be or not, it is not.

I'm not defending J&J. I'm just noting that the ARC has a recent history of running itself very badly, and that J&J is a hundred-year-old-plus company that could very well have been the first to trademark that symbol and have the legal right to protect it IF the ARC crossed the line for protected charitable fund-raising activities. A rush to judgment should be avoided.

Frank2135

OBG -

Hadn't thought of this in years until your post. My dad was a B-26 pilot in WWII; eventually retired after 26 yrs AF active duty. Remember him and my mom — and their circle of friends — having strong "disdain" for the ARC for reasons you cite. They never got over it. Fortunately, never needed their services during my 4 years.

To be sure, the ARC has done/does do some good things. But, the J&J situation reminds us things are often not as simple as they seem at first glance.

Dan

Frank 2135 - its not my area of the law either but I am sure that you are right that a company can probably trademark a symbol even though it is prior use internationally and even recognized in international treaties. Just another example of the difference between "what is right" and "what you can get away with legally."

I hope the judge in this case recognises that trademark issue legalities are now recognised as international law issues and therefore any trademark rights issued to Johnson and Jonhson within the United States, were issued illegally within the USA, with Johnson and Johnson knowing full well that the red cross symbol was known and recognised internationally before the company Johnson and Johnson was formed and had therefore used the red cross symbol to profit by using the internationally recognised symbol of the Red Cross of the International Red Cross.
This being the case, then a judgement will hopefully be made retrospectively as to a fare royalty payment structure from Johnson and Johnson to the IRC. A fare sum should hopefully amount to a few Billion Dollars. Johnson and Johnson are on some dangerous international legal territory and that combined with the adverse publicity hopefully the shareholders will sack the corporate leadership for such foolish legal claims. I hope it will be so and that such a counterclaim by the IRC is made for retrospective licensing trademark infringements made all those years previously.
I think everyone should realise that for a trademark to be issued it must be original and not publicly recognisable as to its association to any other organisation whether that organisation is charitable or corporate.
Why is Johnson and Johnson not filling a case for trademark infringment with the IRC? They have the same symbol as the ARC?

As I said, it's not my area of practice...but I read quite a bit, and I'm not sure everything you said is correct. Johnson & Johnson has been using this symbol in profit-making activities for a hundred years or so without any (successful) challenge to its right to do so. The American Red Cross (not the IRC) has been actively retailing products with the symbol on it in alleged "charitable fund raising" activities for only a few years.

I think the issue here is not whether the ARC has the right to use the symbol; the question is whether the use made of it in this case is lawful. And all I keep saying is, don't be hasty to reach a conclusion - the answer may not be obvious.



Frank2135

I am not defending J&J, just their right to have their case heard, regardless of whether it is potentially PR suicide or not.

I hope the judge just looks up the website for both Johnson and Johnson and American Red Cross and makes his decision based on what he sees.

I know of a very simular case. Cold Steel registered a trademark/copywrite on the name American Tomahawk Company along time ago but never used the name until recently after a tomahawk company began to make and sale vietnam tomahawks under the American Tomahawk Company with the permission of Peter Laguna the founder of the original company and maker of the first vietnam tomahawk. Cold Steel had got the copywrite and began to mark thier tomahawks with a sticker that said American Tomahawk Company confusing some people about who made what and who had a legit argument. Can somebody go copywrite and trademark everything under the sun and sit on it until they want to make something using that name or does it belong to the first one to brand thier products with it and actually sale an item.

This entire thread reminds me of a classic Onion article....

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130

Bill Gates patents Ones and Zeros

I guess the only happy folks in this case will be the Lawyers. The problem for Johnson and Johnson will be the negative publicity. The excutive board members of J&J need a reality check. I think they have been in the privaledged rarified atmosphere of greedy corporate America for to long now to see the consequences of their decision to legal redress against the ARC. Simple happy, greedy fools.
The rest of the worlds media will probably just make the association or the corporate analogy that the Red Cross is in the cross hairs of a corporate weapon in the same way that the red cross symbol was targeted not so long ago on the roofs of red cross ambulances whilst rushing war victims to hospital.