Reply #7: I think people are reading it backwards.

[Igel]

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-GEN-US-Red-Cross-Lawsuit.php gives additional info.