Comments on: Johnson & Johnson Sues American Red Cross Over Trademark

By: AMF

AMF — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:06:18 +0000

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.

By: pete

pete — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:36:29 +0000

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!!!

By: Aubiekat

Aubiekat — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:24:46 +0000

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.

By: Sean Dix

Sean Dix — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:12:33 +0000

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

By: Johnson & Johnson’s Trademark Battle with the American Red Cross Isn’t as Necessary as They Let On

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 05:18:47 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: Eric Eggertson

Eric Eggertson — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:27:51 +0000

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.

By: Brad

Brad — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:50:18 +0000

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!

By: charlie cardinal

charlie cardinal — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:09:59 +0000

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

By: Shelia

Shelia — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:10:27 +0000

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.

By: charlie cardinal

charlie cardinal — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:48:51 +0000

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.