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