http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/DCW08208082007-1.htm


Okay, so a judge will now have to decide whether the American Red Cross may use a "red cross" symbol?

A little more history on the American Red Cross. Back in the days when everyone smoked, some cigarette companies routinely donated cartons of cigs to GI's, via the Red Cross. The RC then SOLD those donated cigs to the underpaid servicemen. If you are in the military and a death occurs in your family, the RC will make immediate arraingments for you to receive emergency leave, and make travel reservations for you. You will be billed for that travel, the ENTIRE cost coming out of your next paycheck, no matter how far down the food chain you are, and how little you make. Most service people who have had any dealings with the RC do not like them one little bit...

When someone infriges on your branding, copyright, patent, or other intellectual property, your only legitimate recourse is taking action in the court system.

So yes, a judge will decide.

I don't see why this is a problem. Should J&J roll over after spending $$$$ to create, promote and build their branding?

The American Red Cross is now competing with J&J in a commercial venture. The ARC has to play by the rules like everyone else. If a judge decides the American Red Cross crossed the line, so be it. I doubt J&J would have taken on this PR nightmare if they weren't convinced that they have a good chance to prevail.

IMO, the emotional argument presented by the American Red Cross's CEO was telling.

If the law was on their side, they could just argue that position. I haven't seen anything presented by the ARC that would indicate that they don't see a problem with their use of the branding. The only thing I could find is how the profit hungry corporation is trying to damage a benevolent Not-for-Profit.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Thanks for the post.

It looks to me like this is about Red Cross SELLING products with the red cross logo.

Take a look at the products that Red Cross sells:

https://www.redcrossstore.org/dp.aspx?pgid=-1

Then there was this little story following the September 11 attacks:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/30/eveningnews/main516886.shtml

Some chapters of the Red Cross are great. As an organization, their goals are great. But they do cross the line between charity and big business a lot, and their history of oversight of the local chapters is incredibly poor.


Frank2135

The idea that J&J has owns the "red cross symbol" - is absurd.

It's strange that when large companies file these silly claims that people don't call them frivolous.

Why?

McDonalds owns the "Golden Arches"
NBC owns the peacock
Apple computer owns the image of an apple.

What makes a red cross exempt?

It's not really that absurd. According to Wikpedia, Johnson & Johnson was founded in 1886. The International Society of the Red Cross had only been formed in Switzerland in the 1860s, and Clara Barton only began organizing the American Red Cross in 1873. It is extremely possible that J & J registered and trademarked the red cross symbol in the US before the ARC ever thought of doing it.

And I don't know that the claims are frivolous. Taking on a charity is a tough decision for a company that lives or dies by the public's perception of them. I would think they would not have done so unless they felt they had a very strong case.

Frank2135

The American Red Cross was created before J&J started using the symbol. And the International Red Cross was founded even earlier in Switzerland. So here were these charitable organizations using this symbol and J&J comes along later and stick it on its products. What scum.

And - I don't know about the selling cigs and other things mentioned above but my only personal experience with the red cross was when an apartment building burned down on my block in the middle of the night. A red cross team showed up while the firefighters were still fighting the fire. They gave the people who lived in the buildings clothing, offered them cell phones to call friends, checked to see if anyone needed medications to replace the ones lost in the fire, and arranged to transport people to a hotel. And I don't know how long the Red Cross would have been willing to pay for the hotel, but I know that they paid for two nights for the people I knew until they could find friends to live with. Like I said, that is just my limited personal experience.

Here's the entry from Wikipedia re the ICRC:

"The Red Cross on white background was the original protection symbol declared at the 1864 Geneva Convention. It is, in terms of its color, a reversal of the Swiss national flag, a meaning which was adopted to honor Swiss founder Henry Dunant and his home country. The ideas to introduce a uniform and neutral protection symbol as well as its specific design originally came from Dr. Louis Appia and General Henri Dufour, founding members of the International Committee. The Red Cross is defined as a protection symbol in Article 7 of the 1864 Geneva Convention, Chapter VII ("The distinctive emblem") and Article 38 of the 1949 Geneva Convention ("For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field")"

In short twenty years before J&J was founded, the symbol was recognized in the Geneva Convention.

What corporate chutzpah!

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.

So, is the use of this symbol on American military buildings, tents, aircraft, vehicles, and medical personnel in jeopardy? I wonder what they would use to replace it if a judge rules in favor of J&J. Perhaps a red snake instead. Never mind, that one is for lawyers.

I would hope that a judge would consider a lot more than that. The law would be a good place to start.



You sound mighty familiar. Have we met here before? Maybe you were posting under another name at one time?

If only if I'd have taken out that patent for c:\ in 1977

J&J isn't saying the Red Cross can's use a red cross as it's symbol. J&J is just a little miffed that the AMERICAN Red Cross is licensing J&Js trademark to J&Js competitors.

AFAIK, the red cross on white background is officially recognized as a symol to be used on the battlefield to denote medical personell by the Geneva Conventions of (I think) 1861. This judge is going to have a ball balancing trademark and international treaty issues.

BTW, do you have a twin-brother named Bentirrian?

That's how I see it. Well said.

Looks like J&J have been doing some IP trawling. They appear to have failed on the international scene and are looking to catch some smaller fish at home.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200312/24/eng20031224_131113.shtml


Who's Bentirrian?

I think the case may have turned out different if the jurisdiction was the US.

Careful vs Carefree? Come on. It is my understanding that most Chinese don't even speak English. You can't convince me that this isn't a ripoff of one of J&J's flagship brands.

Based on this discussion, I think my idea to open a chain of McDognals restaurants in China is a go!

"...most Chinese don't even speak English..."

Just a little question: How many Americans do you figure speak Chinese???

Careful v Carefree. From a purely english gramatical sense, these words have almost the exact opposite meaning.

From the Oxford English dictionary,

Careful - • adjective 1 taking care to avoid mishap or harm; cautious. 2 (careful with) prudent in the use of. 3 done with or showing thought and attention.

Carefree - • adjective free from anxiety or responsibility.


I must admit I've really had a laugh at Bill Gates statement from your link,



Classic I think even George Boole would have probably seen the funny side.

Wouldn't bet on it. Among students and business-people, learning English is a big deal. And here's an eye-opener:

"In 20 years time, the number of English speakers in China is likely to exceed the number of speakers of English as a first language in all the rest of the world." — Gordon Brown, UK Finance Minister, 2005, during speech in Beijing.

I would bet on it.

The stats I could find show that today English is a second language spoken by fewer than 20% of Chinese living in China.

That means "most" don't speak English, or has Wikipedia changed the meaning of "most" again?

I meant no offense to any Chinese if my comments came across as offensive.

I just agree with J&J's position that the Chinese product name "Careful" is an infringement on the product name "Carefree". IMO to a primarily non-English speaking audience, the products names would look similar. Without a command of English one might assume it was another form of the "Carefree" product. e.g. Coke vs Diet Coke, Pepsi v Pepsi One.

I would like to see the product packaging.

OBG....Google reports between 2-3 million US citizens speak Chinese. The total US population is 300 million or so, Therefore, around than 1% of the total US population speaks Chinese.

Am_Fear_Liath_Mor... Big Old Grey Guy... It seemed like an appropriate article for this thread.

If you like to laugh out loud, you should check out the rest of The Onion's irreverent humor...

http://www.theonion.com/content/index

This lawsuit is not about J&J trying to prevent the Red Cross from using a red cross as their symbol for their charitable relief efforts. J&J and the Red Cross have gotten along for decades each using the symbol. However the Red Cross has only been able to use the symbol for charitable, not for profit purposes.

The problem that has developed recently is that the Red Cross has started licensing the symbol to other companies for use on their products that are being sold for a profit and competing with J&J's products.

The Red Cross is the bad guy in this situation IMO. They are the ones that violated the 90+ year old agreement over the symbol...and for the record, J&J offered to go to third party private mediation to try and resolve this dispute rather than file the lawsuit against the Red Cross but the Red Cross refused.

I think he spelled it bentirran but yeah, it's the same guy.

"The Red Cross is the bad guy in this situation IMO. They are the ones that violated the 90+ year old agreement over the symbol"

So there is an symbol adopted by the ICRC, it is recognized in the Geneva Convention, years later J&J is incorporated, starts using the symbol, and now many years later they are suing someone else for using the symbol that they, themselves, appropriated 100 years go.

And you think that makes them the "good guy"?

?

According to the ARC 2006 annual report $1,499 million dollars are used for salaries, benefits and wages. A total of $5,300 million dollars are used for overall program operations. An additional $3,427 million dollars for supporting services operations. While I could not find the salary of the CEO, I seem to remember reading it was $3-400,000 plus dollars. A fairly hefty chunk of change and is comparative in nature to many for profit businesses.

While most would acknowledge the wonderful services that the local and regional ARC agencies provide, one must also recognize many at the national staff level are well-paid executives, with salaries and benefits comparable to any large for profit corporation. While the ARC is non-profit, many at the upper levels are well compensated. Whether or not they deserve it is open to discussion, but the ARC is a large corporation never the less and should abide by American business law.

Pete

The other post said his opinion was that the American Red Cross was the bad guy, not that J&J is the good guy. Not the same thing at all.

Again, the issue is not whether the American Red Cross can use the red cross symbol. Let me put it in terms that may be more meaningful to you:

The question being raised in this suit is whether or not the sainted ARC can collect money from a profit-chasing, capitalist pig corporation by licensing it to use the same symbol that J&J has trademarked. It allows said profit-chasing, capitalist pig corporation to make the same money-grubbing use of the symbol that J&J does without having to bother with a trademark. In other words, it's alleged to be a capitalist pig conspiracy and the sainted American Red Cross (read the stories about the San Diego chapter some time) is in the middle of it, allegedly grubbing for money along with the other oinkers.

Frank2135

Frank2135 - I am not sure what you mean by that last paragraph.

I don't have a problem at all with for-profit businesses. I work in one.

I do have a problem with frivolous lawsuits clogging up our courts.

My apologies. From your prior posts I was getting a sense that your assumption was that profit-motivated operations are inherently suspect and probably immoral. Bad judgment on my part. Please don't take offense.



Frank2135

I must say that was very succinct way of describing the issue.

Therefore we can conclude that J&J is a money grabbing capitalist pig corportation who purpose is to provide profits for its owners and that;

ARC is a charity which use money grabbing capitalist pig corporation techniques within a capitalist pig economy (sorry but that was just to keep the analogy consistant) to raise money so that it can provide services such as emergency relief to folks in times of national and local emergency.

And that J&J believe that the average consumer will be confused by thinking that part of the cost of purchasing products such as panty liners and household airfreshners, which J&J manufacture ( a family company ), could potentially be being donated to the ARC, rather than providing to the owners of said J&J corporation it rightful profits because of confusion surrounding the trademark, which it claims it owns (i.e. J&J as a global commercial business entity has the full singular ownership and commercial use rights of the Red Cross symbol).

I think you are missing the point.

The issue is the ARC is partnering or licensing to commercial companies the use of the Red Cross trademark, which J&J owns for commercial applications. As I understand the use of this particular trademark, the ARC may use it for any purpose it has direct responsibility, i.e. educational literature, training manuals, audio-visual training aids, vehicle or personal identification, but they may not extend to others the use of the trademark for commercial applications.

Pete

Am Fear Liath Mòr (also known as The Big Grey Man of Ben MacDhui or simply 'the Greyman') is the name of a presence or creature which is said to haunt the summit and passes of Ben MacDhui, the highest peak of the Cairngorms and the second highest peak in Scotland. It has been described as an extremely tall figure covered with short hair, or as an unseen presence that causes uneasy feelings in people who climb the mountain. There is little evidence of the existence of this creature besides various sightings and a few photographs of unusual footprints.

It's the same guy...new drinking game anyone?

Hi Pete,

From what I have been able to gather, J&J do not own the red cross symbol as a trademark as the red cross symbol essentially cannot be trademarked within the US. J&J have been able to continue to use the red cross symbol because the company was incorporated prior to the 18 USC 706 law and due to historical usage the red cross symbol on some of its products and have historically carried on using the red cross on some of its products. J&J cannot have a trademark on the red cross symbol.
J&J I suspect will not have a registration mark beside the red cross symbol because it would be in violation of US law.

Of course the AMR is allowed to authorise its assigned agents to allow the use of the red cross symbol as allowed for under the code. I am afraid that J&J by claiming sole rights within US jurisdiction are on a hiding to nothing.

You forgot to mention the Top Hat!

Here is at least one of the Johnson & Johnson US Trademarks:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=v37e1v.2.22

Here is at least one of the ARC US Trademarks:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=v37e1v.2.29

One would have to look up each of the “Goods and Services” that each trademark covers to see which who has “rights’ to what.

It also looks that there are many “Red Cross” Trademarks, some “live, some dead”.

It is obvious, that Trademark and Trademark law is complex, let us wait and see what the US court(s) determine before we condemn either entity.

Pete

And the thick skin.

Sarcasm deserves sarcasm. Point taken.



Yes and no. Profit is obviously the point of commerce; I don't think anyone engages in it in order to be at one with the cosmos or to discover the meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything. On the other hand, the ARC seems to be providing "relief" primarily to its own executives and "services" primarily to the private corporations that bid the most for licensing rights to the red cross symbol.



The ARC is licensing companies to put the red cross on panty liners and air fresheners? First I've heard of that. Doesn't seem like a very sound marketing strategy, but what do I know?

There, I did it again, I lapsed into sarcasm. Sorry. Again, my point is not the defense of J&J's actions or its "thoughts". My point is that the white hat worn by the American Red Cross is definitely a bit soiled, and the right and the wrong of it all have yet to be determined.


Frank2135

Unfortunately the CNN article is little more than a ARC press release. This article by BBC News (admittedly not among my top news sites) presents a more balanced view of the dispute.

JimJr