Red Cross sued over its - Red cross!

J&J, one of the largest drug makers in the world has sued the Red Cross over its use of one of the most famous symbols in the world - the red cross.

The problem is that the Red Cross is not the only organization using this symbol. The red cross also appears on J&J's first-aid kits and bandages.

In the suit, J&J asked the court to force the Red Cross to have "all licensed products with the red-cross emblem destroyed and to permanently enjoin all sales of products bearing the emblem on first-aid, safety-preparedness and related products."

The Red Cross CEO, Mark Everson, called the action "bizarre" and "obscene."

J&J claims the company has been using the red cross since 1887, before the chartering of the Red Cross. J&J trademarked the design consisting of two intersecting red lines of equal length at least "as early as 1906," according to the suit. J&J also claims that the Red Cross only has the right to use the trademark "in connection with nonprofit relief services."

And if you think this is a hoax, do a Google news search.

BrandweekNRX is a blog for marketing professionals. So seriously folks: Is this about the most foolish PR move by any drug company this year? Or is it the worst move in a decade???

Feel free to use the comment section.

- Peter Rost, M.D. is a former VP of Pfizer and the author of Killer Drug and The Whistleblower.

Comments

[Jon]

The key is:

"J&J also claims that the Red Cross only has the right to use the trademark "in connection with nonprofit relief services."

Johnson and Johnson own the Registered Trademark and may have lost it due to not defending it, we'll see.

However, it's not at all bizzare that The Red Cross should be enjoined from commercial exploitation of that mark. Just because they want to make more money (yeah, not profit, but what is their overhead to service delivery ratio?)

Regardless, there is a difference between commercial and non commercial institutions and the uses of a mark. Commercially this belongs to J&J, nothing bizzare at all.

The OP is a classic bit of biased crap faux journalism IMNSHO. What's the motive? Monetizing Clicks Baby. SEO.

And so it goes...

[ted]

The Red Cross logo dates from 1864. It was chosen to honor the founder of the organization and his native country, Switzerland, of which the logo is a reverse image of their national flag.

[Jo Summertime]

The red cross have litigated against Australia fashion label "Fashion Assassin" for using a cross too similar to the red cross logo on a pair of jeans. I find it poetic justice that Red Cross are now being sued.

[Robert]

Wasn't the Red Cross suing or threatening to sue video game designers recently? If I recall correctly they wanted them to stop slapping the logo on first aid kits in game.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/09/canadian_red_cross_w.html

[Kitsunemisao]

Personally, I think the REd Cross (the logo) isn't a trademark logo but more of a sign to indicate health or aid. Like those chemical Logos they have and stuff

[confession]

Does anyone know how, where and when the red cross adopted it's symbol?

[Raul]

Commercially or legally you can discuss this matter, but politically it's the dumbest move you could do as a pharmaceutical company! At the time when Big Pharmas are looked at as the evil by politicians and citizens all over the world (Novartis-India, Vioxx-FDA, multi-billion earnings,etc.), sueing the biggest humanitarian organisation over a century-old-logo copyright issue is plainly STUPID ! I can only imagine the comments on any newspaper : "Multi-Billion-Dollars-Big-Pharma wants money from suffer-relieving not-for-profit organisation" : BEST PR EVER !

[Simon]

J&J will be thankful that they sell gauze and bandages as they sure have shot themselves in the foot with this move!

[poiuz]

I'm no lawyer, but isn't there something in copyright and patent law that is called "prior art". I just read the wikipedia arcticle (yeah I know it's no sound source, but I think simple things as founding dates should be correct) and it states that in 1864 was even the first mission under the red cross. Furthermore, the American Red Cross was founded in 1881 by Clara Barton.

So, when the company claims to use their logo since 1887 don't this also say they ripped it. And even if not, they clearly came up with the same idea years later.

[Budda Magoo]

The American Red Cross is just getting a dose of their own medicine, and they've started a war on themselves.

"The fact that the Red Cross is also used in videos which contain strong language and violence is also of concern to us in that they directly conflict with the basic humanitarian principles espoused by the Red Cross movement,'' Pratt said in a Jan. 31 letter to a Vancouver law firm that represents several Canadian game developers. "The crux of the problem is that the misuse of the Red Cross in video games is not only in contravention of the law, it also encourages others to believe that the emblem of the Red Cross is `public property' and can be freely used by any organization or indeed for commercial purposes."

[John Mack]

Both have ripped off the logo from the Christian crusaders:

"Although originally adopted as a symbol of neutrality, the Red Cross is considered offensive to many in the Middle East and Muslim countries since it bears striking similarities to the symbols that adorned the tunics and shields of Christian knights during the Holy Crusades. In response to this misperception, Turkey adopted the Red Crescent, which has religious connotations rooted in Islamic faith, and it was accepted as an additional symbol of the Movement at the Geneva Convention of 1929."

"misperception" or not, the "red cross" was a symbol used by knights in the crusades.

See http://www.thoughtsondesign.com/september-october

[Nonrandom Chaos]

First, this is a trademark dispute which bears little relationship to patents and copyrights. Prior Art does not apply.

Of course, J&J has very little case. Trademarks are required to be defended. If someone starts using your trademark and you don't attack them, it is legally considered generic. The fact that J&J has not defended their trademark for over a century means that any court will conclude that they have not defended their trademark and it is a generic term.

This is what happened with aspirin. That was originally a brand name, but it wasn't defended when third parties also started marketing aspirin. Unlike copyright, you can't ignore trademark violators - if you do, you loose the trademark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

[TERRY]

NEXT THEY WILL SUE THE ARMY FOR USING IT

[TERRY]

NEXT THEY WILL SUE THE ARMY FOR USING IT

[Jen White]

Whether it's the worst PR move in a day, month, year, or decade may be up for debate, but hands-down, this is awful PR.

Almost unbelievable. It will be interesting to watch this unfold.

Jen

[Greg S.]

I think this is a ridiculous move by J&J. The Red Cross is a company that helps people and poses no threat to J&J's market share. When people think of J&J they dont put the cross in their mind, they think of the company as a whole and what they offer. The Red Cross is known for that symbol. With this PR now it is going to bring a sour taste to people's mind about J&J. It is a universal sysmbol of aid, not a marketing symbol.

[Peter O'Connell]

Well, it sounds like bad PR on the surface but in reading a bit about it (albeit from J& J's perspective) HAS the ARC been doing things with its logo it should NOT do?

http://www.jnj.com/news/jnj_news/20070809_081717.htm

- Peter

[Jeremy]

Regardless if J&J has a case, whether they've allowed their trademark to be used for a century - please don't forget that company's spend billions each year on marketing to assure consumers they're the friendly, insert_desired_outcome_here choice. The $10 M that they said they are out yearly is a drop compared with the cash they are going to have to put out to erase this from US consumers.

From a business perspective it really makes zero sense. I can tell you, I will think twice about buying their product, regardless of they are legally entitled. And in the end, its a consumer that charts the outcome of a company - not the courts.

[Smith]

If the blogger had done his research, he would have included that the Red Cross is licensing, for profit, the cross symbol out to companies whose products directly compete with those of J&J. Leaving this out makes it less sensational though. I would sue them too.

[mwelinder]

the red cross "logo" with contextual relevance dates back to the knights templar (1086-ish) and the knights hospitaller (1080 -/+). the hospitallers specifically were specifically chartered with taking care of sick and poor pilgrims on their way to the holy land. After napoleon captured malta from the order some parts of it splintered off, but the order is still active. for example, google the order of st. john (they have a us web site). in summary, there are organizations who have been using the red cross logo for over nine hundred years. this legal scuffle for the rights to the imagery associated with a universal symbol is truly pathetic.

[free iphone]

That sucks

[Steve Woodruff]

I find it amazing that so few seem to be asking the obvious - why is the American Red Cross insisting on doing what they are doing? They picked this battle by changing the rules of the game...

[Michael J]

Amazing, but what is even more amazing - is that J&J is not suing the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)organization, Who is the Owner of the Red Cross logo and has been using it since 1863, clearly only Identifying the “American Red Cross Chapter,
The ICRC was created in 1863, In Geneva Switzerland by five Swiss, in October of that year the first international conference ( 14 Countries ) participated, as held .In addition to adopting ten resolutions, which provided for the establishment of relief societies for wounded soldiers - the future Red Cross and, later, Red Crescent Societies - it also adopted the red cross on a white background as the uniform distinctive emblem and flag as an emblem of neutrality.
Clara Barton created and officialy became president of the American Red Cross on May 21 1881 and the Organization was quiet prominent.

In 1885 J&J was created in the US by the Johnson Brothers and incorporated in 1887. It sold ready to use dressings.
( I wonder if they thought that associating their name wiht he Red Cross would help them sell prodcuts... hummmm.. )
J & J in the US, adopted the Red Cross Emblem on it's products and trade marked it. Now they are Suing ?
When are they suing the swiss and the 100 or more country chapters in existance ... their stock might go up. I would love to see what you could get out of let us say.. Rwanda Red Cross chapter....
.....Amazing

[Michael J]

Amazing, but what is even more amazing - is that J&J is not suing the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)organization, Who is the Owner of the Red Cross logo and has been using it since 1863, clearly only Identifying the “American Red Cross Chapter,
The ICRC was created in 1863, In Geneva Switzerland by five Swiss, in October of that year the first international conference ( 14 Countries ) participated, as held .In addition to adopting ten resolutions, which provided for the establishment of relief societies for wounded soldiers - the future Red Cross and, later, Red Crescent Societies - it also adopted the red cross on a white background as the uniform distinctive emblem and flag as an emblem of neutrality.
Clara Barton created and officialy became president of the American Red Cross on May 21 1881 and the Organization was quiet prominent.

In 1885 J&J was created in the US by the Johnson Brothers and incorporated in 1887. It sold ready to use dressings.
( I wonder if they thought that associating their name wiht he Red Cross would help them sell prodcuts... hummmm.. )
J & J in the US, adopted the Red Cross Emblem on it's products and trade marked it. Now they are Suing ?
When are they suing the swiss and the 100 or more country chapters in existance ... their stock might go up. I would love to see what you could get out of let us say.. Rwanda Red Cross chapter....
.....Amazing

[oak]

...new guy on staff...i see some up and comer newb, trying to make a name, who somehow convinced enough people that this was a good idea...if the red cross started selling mass amounts of baby powder, then they may be justified...this is just horrible pr...
OAK

[oak]

...new guy on staff...i see some up and comer newb, trying to make a name, who somehow convinced enough people that this was a good idea...if the red cross started selling mass amounts of baby powder, then they may be justified...this is just horrible pr...
OAK

[Jonathan Paisner]

It is one of the world’s most recognized symbols. It has become the de facto mark of disaster relief. It is almost universally associated with first aid. Yet this symbol is no mere generic icon signifying that help is on the way. The red cross symbol is owned by and registered to Johnson & Johnson, as it has been for over 100 years. And, for the American National Red Cross, this has suddenly become a problem – pitting one of the country’s most venerable corporations against one of its largest and most iconic non-profits.

Despite J&J’s ownership and use of the mark since the 1880’s, the American National Red Cross has the right to use the red cross by a 1900 Congressional decree in connection with the agency’s founding charter. The red cross has peacefully co-existed on Band-Aid boxes and rescue vans pretty much ever since. However, in a lawsuit brought this week by Johnson & Johnson against The American National Red Cross, J&J claims that the Red Cross is overstepping its bounds and infringing upon the J&J trademark by marketing a range of first aid related products that carry the red cross.

In my mind, J&J is 100% right.

News articles have quoted the president of the Red Cross as calling the lawsuit “obscene…simply so that J&J can make more money.” The American National Red Cross is playing the helpless victim here bullied by Big Business. Please. The Red Cross is a behemoth, with nearly $4 Billion in annual revenues. The Red Cross and its licensing agency and its licensing partners (the companies actually conceiving, making and selling these products) saw the financial opportunity presented by a universally recognized and respected symbol. Greed blinded them to the little Registered mark at the base of Johnson & Johnson’s red cross. To claim the high road here under cloak of the hallowed American National Red Cross is, in a word, shameful.

Red Cross Johnson-Johnson

The Red Cross is a wonderful organization that continues to perform its heroic and selfless mission on a global basis. But that does not give them the right to sell something that isn’t theirs and to (purposefully?) create confusion in the market by placing the American National Red Cross logo on products that compete directly with J&J first aid products that carry their proprietary (and identical) red cross. There is plenty of blame to go around here, from the licensing agency that made these deals (Campbell Associates LLC) to the companies manufacturing these products (like Learning Curve and Steps Ahead) to the American National Red Cross lawyers who let these deals go forward.

And the fallout here may be significant, even for those not involved. Yes J&J will take a hit for going after the Red Cross, even if they are in the right. I would hope that the Red Cross takes a hit for their brazen disregard (in my layman’s view) of US trademark law; ditto for the licensing agency and the licensees that conveniently turned a blind eye to the same. Yet this could also be a setback for other non-profits that could legitimately benefit by the increased visibility and revenues enabled by licensing, if these events give their own leaders and partners pause about the feasibility of building a licensing program. And this could hurt other agencies that may rely on the American National Red Cross for funding, if funds, management and energies become embroiled in and distracted by litigation.

More and more non-profits have woken up to the opportunities presented by licensing, particularly the ability to create funding streams other than charitable donations. In other words, the profit motive. And however noble the charter, non-profits can’t venture into the commercial arena and then insist that the rules defining this arena don’t apply to them.

Kudos to J&J. It could not have been an easy decision to bring the American National Red Cross to court over the iconic symbol. But in addition to everything else it represents, this symbol is an incredibly valuable asset. The Red Cross knows well the value of the red cross, that is why they put it on absolutely everything that carries their name. I still can’t figure out if they were simply being brash or just plain clueless in pretending that this valuable asset was really theirs. Probably a bit of both.

[Sean Dix]

Johnson & Johnson threatened to kill me by sending someone to list the ways that J&J could have killed and make it look like an accident or a suicide if I tried to sue them for keeping Flossrings off the market for over a decade. Considering the ever growing body count from J&J's Ortho Evra patch suing the Red Cross is not beneath them. J&J should be boycotted and should have their corporate charter revoked.

Sincerely,
Sean Dix
The FlossRing Company
www.FlossRings.com

[Lee Davis]

So when I was a combat arms medic with a U.S. Army Field Artillery Battallion and wore the Red Cross Armband,I was actually representing J&J? I should contact them as to negotiate back pay!

[Wendy Harman]

Hello everyone -
This is Wendy from the American Red Cross.

For all who might be interested in the latest events surrounding this case - the judge recently threw out a key part of J&J's complaint.

Here is ARC's press release regarding the ruling:
http://www.redcross.org/pressrelease/0,1077,0_314_7242,00.html

We of course hope this nudges J&J to drop the case altogether.

[online acomplia]

Lipitor a gastrointestinal lipase inhibitor used in the management of obesity in adult and adolescent patients age 12 and older. This medicine may be used during the weight loss phase or following weight loss to assist in weight management. http://lipitor.medication.lt

Zocor(simvastatin) is used along with an overall diet plan in order to reduce high blood cholesterol levels. Zocor can significantly reduce the amount of LDL ("bad") cholesterol in the blood while simultaneously raising the levels of HDL-C ("good") cholesterol. http://zocor.medication.lt

Zyban is to quit a smoking addiction. Zyban is the first nicotine-free pill to help you quit smoking. It allows one to quit smoking easier than without taking any medications. http://zocor.medication.lt

Generic Acomplia is an anorectic anti-obesity drug. It is a CB1 cannabinoid receptor antagonist. Rimonabant has been found to stop food craving enough to help people lose weight, and can also help curb other unhealthy urges, such as smoking. http://acomplia.medication.lt