Johnson & Johnson sues American Red Cross

[dr. what]

Oh--I don't see ANY negative PR problems AT ALL with this idea...

Johnson & Johnson, the health-products giant that uses a red cross as its trademark, is suing the American Red Cross, demanding the charity halt its use of the red cross symbol on products it sells to the public.

Johnson & Johnson said it has had exclusive rights to use the trademark on certain commercial products - including bandages and first-aid cream - for more than 100 years.

It contends that the Red Cross is supposed to use the symbol only in connection with nonprofit relief services.

The suit, filed today in US District Court in New York, marked the breakdown of months of behind-the-scenes negotiations and prompted an angry response from the Red Cross.

"For a multibillion-dollar drug company to claim that the Red Cross violated a criminal statute ... simply so that J&J can make more money, is obscene," said Mark Everson, the Red Cross president.

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.

"After more than a century of strong cooperation in the use of the Red Cross trademark. ... we were very disappointed to find that the American Red Cross started a campaign to license the trademark to several businesses for commercial purposes," Johnson & Johnson said in a statement.

It said these product include baby mitts, nail clippers, combs, toothbrushes, hand sanitisers and humidifiers.

The Red Cross said that many of the products in question were part of health and safety kits, and that profits from the sales - totalling less than $US10 million ($11.6 million) - went to boost Red Cross disaster-response efforts.

The suit asks the Red Cross to turn over the products in question to New Brunswick, New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson for destruction and also seeks unspecified punitive damages.

"The Red Cross products that J&J wants to take away from consumers ... are those that help Americans get prepared for life's emergencies," Everson said. "I hope that the courts and Congress will not allow Johnson & Johnson to bully the American Red Cross."

In a telephone interview, Everson said the Red Cross was confident it would prevail.

"Our lawyers have looked at this; we wouldn't be doing something we think is improper, and our position will be sustained in the courts," he said.

Everson noted that the Red Cross faces a budget deficit and relies on donations.

The lawsuit also names four licensing partners involved in marketing the disputed products.

Johnson & Johnson noted that it had contributed $US5 million ($5.8 million) over the past three years to the Red Cross and will continue to make donations.

The company also said that it had offered to engage in third-party mediation to resolve the dispute, but that the Red Cross declined.

[LadyTevar]

What has J&J been smoking that this seemed like a good idea?

[The Yosemite Bear]

I think the RIAA's crack....

[Sriad]

It looks insane, but J&J MUST do this or they'll legally lose control of the red cross trademark. That's just how trademarks work.

The century old agreement between J&J and the Red Cross only allows RC to use the red cross icon for purposes of non-monetary gain, and the charitable destiny of the revenues RC is generating notwithstanding, legally speaking if J&J lets this happen, they are giving their tacit approval to myself, Walmart, and the KKK to sell whatever we want with a red cross on.

RIAA can continue to eat a sack of dicks, but J&J vs. RC is a reasonable suit.

[CmdrWilkens]

Sriad pretty much covered it but it honestly looks like the American Red Cross is in the wrong here and simply pointing out that the intent behind the labelling and sales is charitable is compeltely an appeal to popularity rather than an actual legal defense. As rough as it may seem to sue the Red Cross there is no get out of jail free card just because you are a charitable organization.

[Death from the Sea]

but for pr sake the could simply file an injunction, what is with the punitive damages?

[Darth Wong]

The article states that J&J started using the red cross trademark six years after the formation of the American Red Cross. It does not state whether the American Red Cross started using that symbol from its inception. If it did, then J&J is in the wrong. Trademarks can be registered, but according to The Intellect Law Group, prior use will override registered trademark if you file a challenge and you can prove that you used it before the trademark was registered.

[Netko]

I can understand the position of J&J, but they seriously should have considered a better PR way of dealing with the issue. Maybe licensing the cross for a symbolic 1$ a year in perpetuity or something. I can't see this getting them any friends, and it could also impact their international operations in countries which know of the Red Cross as a positive entity but are far less observant about IP law, so the argument why J&J have to do this will sound like bullshit to them.

[Ritterin Sophia]

From what I understand the Red Cross Emblem was approved and established as the ICRC's emblem at the first Geneva Convention in 1864, a year after the creation of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Meaning it should be trivially easy for the ICRC to win a challenge should they choose to do so.

[Geodd]

Honestly, shouldn't a fucking red cross on a white background be more generic than the word "aspirin"?

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps J&J is simply doing this because they know there will never be a better time. America is as pro-corporate as it's ever been.

PS. Funny trivia: You can spend quite a long time browsing the Johnson & Johnson webpage in search of an example of the red cross symbol there. I gave up looking because I don't have the patience. Certainly, if you show the average person a red cross, the first thing he will think is "The Red Cross charity", not "Johnson and Johnson's famous corporate trademark".

[Adrian Laguna]

The article states that J&J started using the red cross trademark six years after the formation of the American Red Cross. It does not state whether the American Red Cross started using that symbol from its inception. If it did, then J&J is in the wrong. Trademarks can be registered, but according to The Intellect Law Group, prior use will override registered trademark if you file a challenge and you can prove that you used it before the trademark was registered.

I think the American Red Cross had a a red cross as its symbol from inception. The Red Cross had was founded in 1863 under the name "International Committee for Relief to the Wounded", this name was changed to to "International Committee of the Red Cross" in 1876, five years before the opening of the American Red Cross. This suggests that the Red Cross was in use as a symbol by this organization at least 11 years before J&J began to use it.

[The Yosemite Bear]

That is most likely my recollection.

[PeZook]

The abysmal quality of some PR moves by some companies is just breathtaking. So...let's see.

J&J has a small ine of products that use the Red Cross as their logo. In order to protect that line of products, the symbol of which, as DW mentioned, are hardly seen anywhere, promoted or associated with J&J, they will challenge as well known and respected charity organization.

I can bet 100$ that if major media pick up on that, they will see their sales slump. And if they win this lawsuit, what does it gain them? Uh...nothing?

In other words, they risked losing a good image of their company (a hard thing to build, harder to maintain and easy to lose) for no gain whatsoever. And even better, they could've turned this into loads of positive PR by simply playing the logo thing off as an amusing coincidence and announcing plans to establish tight ties with the Red Cross. Similar costs, completely different message.

The wasted opportunity here is incredible. Some boneheaded idiot should be fired for that idea.

[Norseman]

Maybe if you knew the background to the story you'd change your mind.

Apparently the American Red Cross agreed in 1895 that J&J owned the commercial rights to the Red Cross design. A deal was worked out where the Red Cross agreed to never use the logo on commercial products that directly competed with J&J products. For a century both parties kept the deal, and J&J gave loads of cash to the Red Cross.

As for trying a reasonable answer J&J offered to have a third party, even one recommended by the Red Cross, arbitrate between them to find a mutually acceptable solution. The Red Cross rejected this suggestion.

Of course you should take this with a pinch of salt, just remember that there's always two sides to a story.

[Norseman]

You might also want to read this blogpost just be warned! Libertarians!

[PeZook]

Maybe if you knew the background to the story you'd change your mind.

Hmm...yes, it does change my mind.

J&J still could've handled it somewhat better, but at least it turns out they aren't the boneheaded ones.

Whic is good, really. They usually have good marketing and PR sense, and without this tidbit of info, it was really surprising to see them do something like this

[Darth Wong]

If the Red Cross was using the symbol before Johnson and Johnson started using it, then Johnson and Johnson was the party who actually infringed on a trademark, not the Red Cross. Even registering it with the government, securing an agreement with the original user, and making a hundred years of regular payoffs wouldn't change that, if it's truly the case, and maybe the Red Cross just decided to re-assert control over its image. It still comes down to a question of who started using it first. If it's the Red Cross, which I suspect to be the case, it still looks to me like J&J is blowing hot air. And the hard reality is that almost no one associates the red-cross symbol more with J&J than with the Red Cross organization. In fact, I'd be surprised if you could grab 100 people off the street, show them a red cross, and have even one of them mention Johnson and Johnson rather than the Red Cross.

[B5B7]

It is irrelevent what J&J or the ARC do or say. The Red Cross is an international organization and an international symbol, so it is protected by international law, and the rest of the world is not subject to American law.

[PeZook]

If the Red Cross was using the symbol before Johnson and Johnson started using it, then Johnson and Johnson was the party who actually infringed on a trademark, not the Red Cross. Even registering it with the government, securing an agreement with the original user, and making a hundred years of regular payoffs wouldn't change that, if it's truly the case, and maybe the Red Cross just decided to re-assert control over its image. It still comes down to a question of who started using it first. If it's the Red Cross, which I suspect to be the case, it still looks to me like J&J is blowing hot air. And the hard reality is that almost no one associates the red-cross symbol more with J&J than with the Red Cross organization. In fact, I'd be surprised if you could grab 100 people off the street, show them a red cross, and have even one of them mention Johnson and Johnson rather than the Red Cross.

Well, the RC could very well be legally in the right here, I'm just looking at the whole situation from a PR perspective, because the RC is obviously playing on people's sympathies, and J&J has to handle it properly if it doesn't want its image ruined - and lets face it, their initial press release had a vibe of "We're suing the Red Cross just because we're dicks", which is always a bad idea when dealing with a well-respected international charity organization.

[Keevan_Colton]

Suing a charity for punitive damages is being a dick though. There really is no positive way to spin that part of it.

[PeZook]

Suing a charity for punitive damages is being a dick though. There really is no positive way to spin that part of it.

It's really pretty difficult to come out from a fight with an organization like the RC without looking like an asshole. Especially if you may be legally declared to be in the wrong at the end - then you will look like a petty and vindictive asshole.

[K. A. Pital]

Johnson and Johnson claiming rights to what? Red Cross?

I don't know about America, but here everyone knows that the Red Cross is medicine, hospitals, health organizations, rescue and military medics - but nobody associates it with Johnson and Johnson.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Johnson and Johnson claiming rights to what? Red Cross?

I don't know about America, but here everyone knows that the Red Cross is medicine, hospitals, health organizations, rescue and military medics - but nobody associates it with Johnson and Johnson.

And we all know how much the Russian people just LOVE big-business corporations, don't you Stas?

[Keevan_Colton]

Suing a charity for punitive damages is being a dick though. There really is no positive way to spin that part of it.

It's really pretty difficult to come out from a fight with an organization like the RC without looking like an asshole. Especially if you may be legally declared to be in the wrong at the end - then you will look like a petty and vindictive asshole.

Yes, but if you go after a charity seeking punitive damages you are 100% definetly a fucking asshole, no if's or but's about it. They want MONEY from the red cross, not any kind of moral bullshit about trademarks and so on, they want CASH. The amount is undisclosed, but the fact they want punitive damages in itself makes them fucking shitheads, nevermind the rest of it.