Subscribe
Previous Post
What is this world coming to? Now, Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) is suing the American Red Cross over the use of the red cross symbol.
According to an article from the Associated Press, “Johnson & Johnson began using the red cross design as a trademark in 1887 — six years after the creation of the American Red Cross but before it received its congressional charter in 1900. The lawsuit contends that the charter did not empower the Red Cross to engage in commercial activities competing with a private business.”
Apparently, Johnson & Johnson and the American Red Cross have cooperated amicably in the use of the red cross symbol in the past, but those days are over. Johnson & Johnson claims the American Red Cross is now licensing the red cross symbol on products in an effort to make a profit. The American Red Cross, which is currently operating in a deficit, runs solely on donations. They defend their actions by stating the products in question, including baby mitts, nail clippers, combs, toothbrushes, hand sanitizers and humidifiers, are part of health and safety kits. Profits from the kit were less than $10 million and were applied to the American Red Cross’s disaster relief efforts.
If that’s not bad enough, Johnson & Johnson demanded in court papers that all products in question be delivered to its headquarters facility for destruction. The lawsuit also names the four licensing partners involved and requests that the American Red Cross pay punitive damages.
What can I say? Sounds like J&J is bullying the American Red Cross. Perhaps they’re angry that they didn’t get to make the products in the kits. Who knows. Frankly, when I see the red cross symbol, I associate it with the American Red Cross brand, not the Johnson & Johnson brand. If anything, maybe it’s time for Johnson & Johnson to start thinking of revamping its 100-year old trademark.
What do you think? Does Johnson & Johnson’s lawsuit seem appropriate?
I am a Doctor and run a medical business I manage a staff of 15 and do all my in-services. I always stress to my staff the image we must portray. J&J will not win this battle. in business as you grow your reputation with the public becomes more and more important. Infact if your a small company you can do just about anything and no one really cares… im sure you have even seen or heard of some companies who constantly close and then reopen under a new name- why do you think they do that- one main reason is they have damaged the name to much to grow and that is either financially via bankrupt or via public opinion and bad press. so when you have a good name it is like gold to safe guard- it is really a dumb thing to risk your reputation- and i would be hard pressed to find any organization who could survive “in the court of the heart of the public” against the American red cross. i support them and always have. my entire office is ARC emergency certified and I am also an instructor for the ARC- I have seen my fellow ARC volunteers support this country in times of storm and every day in times of war- it is now time to support the ARC. I for one would love to initiate a “dont purchase J&J campaign”.
Dr. Anees F.
Hi
Im english, dont hold it against me. I cannot believe what I am hearing here, Johnson and Johnson should be ashamed. I accociate the red cross with medical things not a company, our ambulances have red crosses on them, do johnson and johnson own them too? What about when I see a camo jeep with a red cross on it, am i to assume they are delivering cotton wool buds and toothpaste??
Your laws are insane, what about the rest of the world where local laws apply? Do they think american law extends to the entire planet??
Priceless!!!
In its legal response to Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) recent lawsuit, the American Red Cross said today that Congress and the Federal government have long recognized the right of the charity to use the Red Cross emblem on products sold to support its mission. It requested a dismissal of several counts on legal grounds. In addition, the Red Cross filed counterclaims to the J&J lawsuit, accusing the for-profit pharmaceutical company of improperly using the Red Cross emblem.
“Johnson & Johnson’s lawsuit is wrong on the facts and on the law,” said Mark W. Everson, President and CEO of the American Red Cross. “For more than a hundred years, in keeping with our Congressional charter, the Red Cross has used its own emblem to support its health, safety and preparedness mission. We will vigorously defend our right to provide the American people with products and services that advance this mission,” said Everson.
In papers today filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Red Cross makes clear that:
Congress has given the Red Cross, through its charter, explicit rights to use the Red Cross emblem for the “purpose of trade or as an advertisement to induce the sale of any article whatsoever for any business or charitable purpose.”
In 1978, the Justice Department, calling the American Red Cross an “instrumentality of the United States,” recognized the right of the Red Cross to use its emblem in arrangements with other entities, such as those attacked by J&J.
Clara Barton, founder of the Red Cross, registered the trademark nine years before J&J did.
Congress specifically intended for the Red Cross to have wide-ranging use of the Red Cross emblem, in support of its humanitarian, preparedness and health and safety-related mission.
During World War II, J&J approached Congress asking it to limit the Red Cross’s use of its own emblem: Congress refused.
The Red Cross response also contends that J&J has worked to expand its use of a red cross symbol beyond its grandfathered rights, at the expense of the Red Cross and its mission.
Congress “grandfathered” J&J’s use of the red cross symbol – placing very specific, narrow restrictions on what the for-profit company could do.
Today, J&J uses the Red Cross emblem beyond their “grandfathered” rights.
“While it’s unfortunate that the issue has reached this point, we have an obligation – on behalf of our chapters, blood donation operations, and hundreds of thousands of volunteers – to protect the proper use of the Red Cross emblem,” Everson continued. “Red Cross chapters across this country and Red Cross societies overseas have encouraged us to defend the Red Cross against this unjustified attack.”
The Red Cross is charged with the mission of helping Americans prevent, prepare for, and respond to disasters and emergencies. One way the Red Cross advances this mission is by providing first aid, health, safety and emergency preparedness products that people can conveniently purchase at places where they regularly shop. The Red Cross invests the proceeds from the sale of these products into fulfilling its humanitarian mission.
The J&J lawsuit comes as local Red Cross chapters are busy with National Preparedness Month. Research shows only 7 percent of Americans have taken the necessary steps to prepare for disasters, but that 82 percent would get prepared if it was easier to do. Red Cross items such as those that are the subject of the J&J lawsuit help families take the necessary steps to Be Red Cross Ready: to get a kit, make a plan and be informed.
Johnson & Johnson threatened to kill me by sending someone to list the ways that J&J could have me killed and make it look like an accident or suicide if I tried to sue them for keeping FlossRings off the market for over a decade. So hearing about J&J suing the Red Cross doesn’t surprise me as nothing is beneath J&J.
Sincerely,
Sean Dix
The FlossRing Company
http://www.Flossrings.com
1724 days ago
[...] A lawsuit against the American Red Cross, demands that the charitable organization cease and desist using the RED CROSS logo (ah, the irony) on any commercial products, and destroy any existing consumer items that use the logo. [...]
This certainly isn’t the first time trademark laws have forced a company into behaving badly to protect a trademark.
Just watch the International Olympic Association go after small family pizza parlours and other companies that use “Olympic” in their company name or advertising.
It’s a no-win situation for the company, from a public relations perspective. They have to either fight for the trademark or lose it. Fighting for it makes them look evil.
How about this, all the money that is received from selling items that have the red cross on it, go back to helping people from horrible events that happen in their lives, where does the money that JNJ receives off of selling their products go….yep….their back pocket….get over it JNJ and realize Red Cross is full of people that sacrifice time, money and blood to help others!
Here’s the latest article about this whole debacle…
http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-7/1187151953197510.xml&coll=1&thispage=1
Just so you know……………
The Red Cross began using the red cross emblem in 1881, six years before Johnson & Johnson (J&J) began using the emblem in 1887.
J&J obtained a trademark registration in 1887, but did not object to the Red Cross use of the emblem at that time.
The Red Cross was first chartered by Congress in 1900, and that charter was amended in 1905. The 1905 amendment gave the Red Cross the use of the emblem, and specifically stated that “in carrying out its purposes under this [charter], [the Red Cross] may have the use, as an emblem and badge, a Greek red cross on a white ground…” The Charter grants the Red Cross “to conduct other activities consistent with” its Charter purposes.
In the 1905 Charter amendment, Congress intended the Red Cross to have the exclusive use of the emblem, and this was confirmed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) when they specifically reserved an application serial number for the Red Cross to register its Emblem in EVERY class of goods and services without limitation.
J&J was concerned that it would lose its right to use the emblem on its products, so it lobbied congress to allow it to continue, or “grandfather” its use of the red cross symbol. Congress passed a law making it a crime for third parties other than the Red Cross to use a red cross symbol fraudulently but also permitted J&J and the dozens of other companies to continue to use the red cross emblem for only those products used by those companies as of that time. Congress made this a criminal statute specifically to protect the Red Cross from unauthorized users of the emblem.
Look at the Nike swoosh, I’m sure it’s patented so Nike would be doing the same thing to someone if they were using a swoosh. The swoosh is a
“symbol”.
I wonder why JnJ has just now decided to get the Red Cross to stop using the cross?? Could it be that the Red Cross is now selling the products in retail and cutting into JnJ’s profit?? I think so.
Ok, thanks I’ll go register my lavender circle now ;)
This is pretty interesting stuff. But odd. I’m still calling it weird that someone can own a shape.
Jennifer, in answer to your question, yes, J&J does have the right to ask the ARC to cease & desist using their trademarked symbol of the red cross. J&J would have paperwork on file with the US Patent & Trademark Office that shows their specific symbol that they have legally trademarked. They have the right to ask anyone who uses the same symbol or a very similar symbol to cease and desist.
Yes, the American Red Cross is a part of the International Red Cross. I don’t know if the IRC “owns” the rights to the symbol or not.
It has been mentioned here that J+J started to use the red cross since 1887, 6 years before the ARC but the International Red Cross (IRC) have been using the Red Cros since 1863. Is the ARC not part of the IRC? Therefore do the IRC not own the rights to the Red Cross ‘logo’ use?
“It’s the law. No matter if you like it or not, you have to observe it.” This I get. I see the points of the research the whole idea and not stealing a logo.
But I’m still am wondering about if you can even own a cross. To me it seems so weird to try and own a logo that’s just a shape. But I’m not a marketing / branding expert so… Does anyone know? Is that legal. Can I own a lavender circle if I start marketing it like mad around my name. Than sue everyone who uses a lavender circle after I do for anything? That’s my issue with this whole issue. No one is going to steal and use, say golden arches — but a colored cross?
Whilst not disagreeing with that this case will do nothing for J+J’s reputation, it is important to check out the facts regarding the logo itself.
J+J first used the red cross in 1887, predating the formation of the ARC. The company retained exclusive rights to use the trademark on commercial products, whilst giving, without charge, the right to the ARC to use it in connection with non-profit relief services.
This seems perfectly reasonable, and ARC therefore should have been aware of this situation before licensing these products (some of which are not really about health/safety).
It seems ridiculous that the two organisations couldn’t have worked together – and it appears that ARC has refused to talk with J+J at all. Indeed, its CEO has felt the need to resort to insults rather than apologising for breaking the law.
I expect better of charitable organisations than this – but given the public track record of ARC, I’m not surprised.
I have no links to J+J, but checked out what information is available on this story and it definitely isn’t a case of bad company, good charity here.
I’ve worn the Red Cross on my arm as a Combat Medic in several battles and wars, it has saved my life more than one time as I was seen as a Medic and NOT as a J+J employee.
I have worn the Red Cross arm band in umpteen countries and I have been seen as Military Medic everytime and NEVER once been asked if I was a J+J employee.
The Red Cross is seen nationally and internationally as a symbol of hope and NOT a company logo, get over yourself J+J, leave the ARC alone.
A very high percentage of people in the world did not even know that J+J were linked with the red cross logo and still don’t!
Now I know that J+J ‘own’ the red cross symbol I will look out for it and NOT buy J+J products……….
I’ve worn the Red Cross on my arm as a Combat Medic in several battles and wars, it has saved my life more than one time as I was seen as a Medic and NOT as a J+J employee.
I have worn the Red Cross arm band in umpteen countries and I have been seen as Military Medic everytime and NEVER once been asked if I was a J+J employee.
The Red Cross is seen nationally and internationally as a symbol of hope and NOT a company logo, get over yourself J+J, leave the ARC alone.
A very high percentage of people in the world did not even know that J+J were linked with the red cross logo and still don’t!
Know I know that J+J ‘own’ the red cross symbol I will look out for it and NOT buy J+J products……….
Red Cross bullying JnJ?? How do you figure?? JnJ is the one that filed the lawsuit to begin with. I think JnJ is trying to do the bullying. The Red Cross is making pocket change on first aid kits being sold in stores like Target compared to JnJ.
I think JnJ needs to go after the creators of MASH because they used a Red Cross. Heck, why stop at MASH,? They should go after all of the red cross flags that are every where in the middle east where are brave men and women are fighting and they go to seek MEDICAL assistance.
This lawsuit irritates the hell out of me. We have bigger and better fish to fry in this country. Thanks JnJ for wasting donated dollars to the red cross to fight this idiotic lawsuit.
Indeed I don’t think my point is moot at all. It’s the law. No matter if you like it or not, you have to observe it. If the law says JnJ owns the trade mark, then the trademark belongs to JnJ. If you think that JnJ can not own it, then you have to go to the court to challenge it. You can not just say “no I don’t like it” then violate the law.
I do not think that this suit helps JnJ to improve its public relationship at all. Indeed this suit has a potential to damage JnJ’s PR. But JnJ has no choice in my opinion. It is a public company and needs to protect the intersts of its investigators. If you read the news carefully, JnJ did not ask ARC to stop using the logo, it asked ARC to stop LICENSING it to FOR-PROFIT third parties that make products to compete with JnJ. I think ARC is utilizing its unique situation to bully JnJ.