Legal fight over red cross symbol

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

Medical firm Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is suing the American Red Cross, alleging the charity has misused the famous red cross symbol for commercial purposes.
J&J said a deal with the charity's founder in 1895 gave it the "exclusive use" of the symbol as a trademark for drug, chemical and surgical products.

It said American Red Cross had violated this agreement by licensing the symbol to other firms to sell certain goods.

The charity described the lawsuit as "obscene".



Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6938364.stm

---

Obscene it might be but trademarks are trademarks.

You might find this useful : http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/t...

[tecelote]

1. But trademarks must be protected.

If J&J has not enforced their trademark until now, it would seem that they have lost the rights unless the Red Cross is now doing something substantially different than they had been. It seems to me that they have had commercial products for many years. I could be wrong.

It still stinks. Stopping the Red Cross would be one thing but asking for financial retribution is greedy.

[dipsydoodle]

2. They currently use that mark themselves,

have always done so, and I think the addition of it in packaging in the USA by the Red Cross may be a more recent event. I think the Red Cross will lose and any damages will be given to charity by J & J.

[izzie]

3. This is a strange one to me. Maybe Jand J is trying to get back

all the money the family lost in that big will deal? Just joking. I do not see why Jand J should go after the red cross now if it has let them use this for over 100 years but I would not put it passed the RC selling rights. Dole got rich being the head of the group. Some thing is wrong with their business dealing for sure.

[mainegreen]

4. I think Switzerland should sue everybody involved.

That cross is a cheap knockoff of the Swiss flag. Merely inverting the colors is a low way to try and hide it. I for one have had enough of everyone profiting off this symbol of Switzerland without just compensation!



(for those who care, this is mildly sarcastic)

[Solon]

8. That's actually Ironic considering the International Committee of the Red Cross...

is based in Geneva, Switzerland, and is considered a Sovereign entity according to both Swiss and International law.

[Bonhomme Richard]

5. I happen to agree with J&J.

They were cool with the red cross using the trademark for humanitarian purposes. It also was a benefit for J&J because , by osmosis, the got some of the goodwill that the red cross enjoyed. But when the red cross started to license the trademark to other companies in order to make money I think they crossed the line.

[Igel]

7. I think people are reading it backwards.

It's the Red Cross's symbol, I would think--the RC started using it before J&J did, and the RC is alleged to have granted J&J exclusive use of the copyright for commercial use over certain classes of products. The issue is whether the RC can license *other* products.

J&J's claim isn't that the RC is violating J&J's trademark, but that the RC is violating the terms of the license granted by the RC to J&J a century ago. Moreover, the way the RC was chartered forbids it from any commercial activity that would compete with a private company. It's unclear that the products compete with J&J, or that licensing falls under the right definition of commercial activity.

They're trying to play ju-jitsu: It's the RC's trademark, it was licensed to J&J for exclusive use on some products, and only J&J has used it (as its own) for a hundred years. Therefore, and because the terms of the RC's charter adopted after the trademark was licensed to J&J prevent it from doing anything else commercial with the trademark, J&J effectively has exclusive control of the trademark not only for the commercial products it's made in the past, but for *all* commercial products.

I'd like to see the original agreement between the RC and J&J and if it has a termination clause or if it's in perpetuity.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/09/america/NA-GE... gives additional info.

[mikelgb]

6. I sued Colorado

I think it looks a little bit too much like Wyoming...

[Solon]

9. Hey guys, the American Red Cross predates the existance of J&J by 5 years...

and adopted the symbol of the ICRC and is officially accepted within it. So J&J DOESN'T have a trademark on the Red Cross symbol, the American Red Cross does, J&J is just saying that, since it was given "exclusive" rights to the symbol for commercial purposes over one hundred years ago, they believe the American Red Cross is violating that original agreement now.

[Hugin]

10. Aren't trademarks only good for a certain amount of time?

[Xithras]

11. No, trademarks are forever

They only expire if you stop using them.