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.