Last week, Johnson & Johnson filed a lawsuit against the American Red Cross, demanding the charity halt its use of the red cross symbol on products sold to the public. At issue is the trademark - a charter issued in 1900 didn’t empower the Red Cross to engage in commercial activities competing with a private business. And J&J began using the symbol in 1887.

Until recently, they’ve cooperated. But J&J is “disappointed” the American Red Cross is licensing the trademark to other businesses for such products as baby mitts, nail clippers, combs, toothbrushes and humidifiers. J&J execs worry about confusion in the marketplace and infringing on their commercial reputation. Red Cross officials call the suit “obscene,” and accuse J&J of trying to “bully” the organization now that negotiations broke down.

This is a difficult situation for J&J. On one hand, the company is entitled to defend its trademark and worried about finding itself on a slippery slope by not taking action. “In other words, as much as we might respect the American Red Cross, if we didn’t act we could open the floodgates to all infringers of our trademark and could do nothing about it,” wrote J&J spokesman Ray Jordan on the health care giant’s own blog, JNJBTW, or J&J By The Way.

At the same time, suing a venerable institution many Americans admire is a risky move, especially for a drugmaker, given that pharma is regularly criticized for putting profits over patients and, often, turning a tin ear to such complaints. This is a no-win situation, although J&J seems prepared to take any hit to its image. We asked what you thought and many clearly believe J&J is correct. A majority, though, disagree. Caveat: this is not a scientific poll, but it does suggest J&J will have to work harder to explain its message, depending upon the course of the litigation.

Should J&J Have Sued The Red Cross?

No - 109 votes, or 57 percent;
Yes - 82 votes, or 43 percent.

Total - 191 votes.