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.
I must say that was very succinct way of describing the issue.
Sarcasm deserves sarcasm. Point taken.
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.
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.
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).
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
Previous Topic
Index
