My Cross! No, MY Cross!

In a second round of legal battles, health care products behemoth Johnson & Johnson has lost steam in its lawsuit against the American Red Cross for their use of the red cross emblem on products for sale. The Red Cross is being sued for using the red cross?

The American Red Cross (ARC) was founded by Clara Barton in 1881. As part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent humanitarian movement, the ARC was free to use the red cross emblem in any way deemed appropriate by its approval years earlier in the Geneva Conventions of 1864. The Conventions approved the use of the emblem by members of the humanitarian movement and the military for display on humanitarian and emergency vehicles, buildings, personnel and chaplains. Though the emblem was inspired by the flag of the notoriously neutral Switzerland, and was adopted as a sign of neutrality and humanitarianism itself, the emblem has had its fair share of controversy over the years. During war times the red cross was considered offensive by some countries, and additional red crescent, red lion and sun, and most recently red crystal emblems were created to be used alongside or instead of the red cross in areas that chose to do so. The ARC had continued to use the red cross emblem, and it has become synonymous with humanitarian aid and disaster relief in the U.S.

So, how is it that Johnson & Johnson, a health products company not affiliated with the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, has been using the red cross emblem on its products since the late 1880’s? As it turns out, the ARC, which was not nationally chartered until 1900, prohibited inappropriate use of the emblem, but no U.S. laws actually protected the emblem prior to 1910. By 1905, over 61 trademark registrations were on the books for the red cross emblem, many of which were registered by Johnson & Johnson. All trademarks obtained by companies prior to 1905 are recognized as legitimate by the ARC as long as those companies do not use the emblem on vehicles or buildings.

Things went on swimmingly between the ARC and Johnson & Johnson for nearly a century with the humanitarian organization receiving large donations from the corporation. The New York Times reported, however, that things took a turn when, in 2004, the ARC began using the emblem on products to be sold in first-aid kits in retail stores. This did not please Johnson & Johnson which stated in a press release, that, “…it changed the long-standing legal boundaries that the ARC and Johnson & Johnson have historically observed around the use of the Red Cross trademark.” To put it bluntly, Johnson & Johnson owns the rights to use the red cross emblem in a way that the ARC has now chosen to use it, and Johnson & Johnson filed a lawsuit against the ARC in August 2007.

My intent is not necessarily to defend the lawsuits of a multi-billion dollar drug company against a non-profit organization in the name of branding. There are surely two sides to this story, and last week a New York judge appeared to favor the American Red Cross’ story. Judge Jed Rakoff ruled that the original ARC charter gives the organization freedom to use the red cross emblem on commercial products that rake in proceeds to be used for the organization’s humanitarian efforts. This is a big win for the American Red Cross which has been under fire for its questionable use of donations and proceeds in response to September 11 and Hurricane Katrina. Johnson & Johnson plans to move forward with its case, but for now the ARC can breathe easy.

Discuss:
Who do you side with in this case?
Is a symbol worth the fight?
Will this permanently damage the relationship between Johnson & Johnson and the American Red Cross?

(Image: Newscom)

Sources:
History of the Emblems – International Committee of the Red Cross
Emblems of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement – Wikipedia
Red Cross Trademark
“Judge sides with Red Cross Over Trademark” – New York Times, May 16, 2008
Johnson & Johnson Statement on the Litigation with the American Red Cross