J&J Sues Red Cross Over Its Symbol
16 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // August 8th, 2007 // 7:19 pm
This can’t be a good public relations move. The health care giant, which uses a red cross as its trademark, filed a lawsuit today against the American Red Cross, demanding the charity halt its use of the red cross symbol on products it sells to the public, the Associated Press reports.
The suit, filed in US District Court in New York, marked the breakdown of months of behind-the-scenes talks, 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,” Mark Everson, the Red Cross president, tells the AP. He goes on to accuse J&J of “bullying” the organization.
Here’s the background: J&J 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 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,” J&J says in a statement and pointed to such products as baby mitts, nail clippers, combs, toothbrushes and humidifiers.
J&J maintains it’s had exclusive rights to use the trademark on certain commercial products for over 100 years. The suit asks the Red Cross to turn over the products in question to J&J for destruction and also seeks unspecified punitive damages. The Red Cross says many of the products in question were part of health and safety kits, and that profits from the sales - totaling less than $10 million - went to boost Red Cross disaster-response efforts.
“The Red Cross products that J&J wants to take away from consumers…are those that help Americans get prepared for life’s emergencies,” says Everson, noting the Red Cross faces a budget deficit and relies on donations. “I hope that the courts and Congress will not allow Johnson & Johnson to bully the American Red Cross…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.”
Lisa Van Syckel
Being Greedy is never a good thing………
Chris
Tricky isn’t it? J&J owns rights to the trademark for 120 years and then another group (which apparently doesn’t own rights) licenses it for a fee to commercial partners which sell products that compete with the owner’s products. Not difficult to see why J&J would defend their position, and especially with apparent hostility from RC. Surely there is some compromise - Red Cross getting awkward with J&J will not do it, and J&J’s position doesn’t look likely to attract much sympathy. But charities can’t expect exceptions to trademark infringements either. Time for grown up discussion perhaps.
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 !
How to get Entangled in a No-win Situation: J&J sues the Red Cross « Impactiviti blog
[...] 9th, 2007 by impactiviti I can just imagine the beating Johnson and Johnson will take over this one. After long negotiations got nowhere, J&J is suing the venerable Red Cross over the commercial [...]
Brent
Y’all seem to consider and/or assume that everyone thinks the Red Cross is a humanitarian charity. The Red Cross uses every catastrophic event around the world to further their quasi-corporate, avaricious agenda. They shouldn’t be involved in commercial ventures!
People do the humanitarian thing and give blood. The American Red Cross does the greedy thing–and resells this blood to whoever needs it and can pay for it. This is not much different than when they were selling “donated” cigarettes to soldiers in WWII or wouldn’t give a cup of coffee to Katrina volunteers unless they had a voucher to ensure the ARC would be repaid by the government.They really need to change their charitable symbol to one of a giant octopus–with each tentacle firmly stuck in a pot of gold. . . and their motto should be “Give a little, take a lot.”
I somehow feel certain that the ARC would eagerly pursue trademark/copyright infringement litigation if the situation were reversed. Not a good PR move for J&J . . . but what is the ARC doing competing in the commercial arena, anyhow?
Melody
Most Pharmalot regulars recognize that the widespread attitude of “profit before patients” has enlisted me in the anti-pharma ranks of most arguments. But as I hear misdeed after misdeed attributed to this “venerable” charity, I would have to give a thumbs-up to J&J for defending their trademark. I would ask the Red Cross why they would spit in the face of the company that has allowed them to usurp their legal property for decades by stealthily entering the commercial market using J&J’s own “property” to do so?
Sue
Doesn’t J&J benefit from having a logo similar to the Red Cross? Basically, the average person thinks (I asked 3 people buying band aids) and they all “assume” that J&J has some sort of affiliation with the Red Cross…so their bottom line has probably been slightly pushed up by this mis-perception…
Glen
Sue has hint the nail on the head. good job
James
Brent is right–ARC is far from a band of globe-trotting do-gooders who toil in the worst of the world’s conditions (at least, they are not that exclusively). After 9/11, when donations to the charity soared, they redecorated their offices, saying that the donations were not earmarked for any particular purpose. Nice to know that Bruce Springsteen was on stage and on every television asking for donations to help buy the best window shades.
However, in life, perception is more important than reality. Most people _think_ that ARC is exclusively a band of globe-trotting do-gooders who toil in the worst of the world’s conditions. Most people _think_ that pharma companies are profit hungry, evil corporations who bilk grandma for every last penny and make up disorders, make up drugs to treat them, run commercials for them in finitum, and overcharge people who now have said phantom diseases.
Bad move by J&J. They seem to be struggling right now–better ready the golden parachutes.
Jen Morris
The design and colours go way back - to the Swiss flag and the Crusaders (I’ll let historians and archaeologists fill in the rest), so maybe J&J should be kicking in a small design fee. (Wasn’t it 5 cents per barrel of oil which made Gulbenkian a wealthy philanthropist in the end - and Bill Gates did the same with MS-DOS?)
As a child after WWII, I always thought of the Red Cross (not necessarily American, to be sure) when my mother deployed J&J gauze to bandage our childhood scrapes and cuts. The Red Cross was a well-established medical symbol that J&J was invoking when it first used the logo - and to my thinking J&J has coasted all these many years on the noble mission of the health care organisation … rather than the other way round.
Lisa Van Syckel
James,
“Make up disorders” ……….
I believe the term is called “Disease Mongering”
JNJ BTW » Blog Archive » And the Coverage Continues…
[...] many other bloggers and observers, Ed Silverman at Pharmalot and Peter Rost (BTW, congratulations Peter on your new role at BrandWeek NrX) at BrandWeek NrX, [...]
Sean Dix
Johnson & Johnson threatened to kill me by sending someone to list the ways that J&J could have me killed and make it look like an accident or 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 J&J although it is the moral equivalent to suing Mother Teresa. J&J should be boycotted and should have their corporate charter revoked.
Sincerely,
Sean Dix
The FlossRing Company
http://www.FlossRings.com
sid
Sean, thanks for the timely post and advertisement. I am glad you have an objective view. I hear Mother Teresa has just endorsed flossrings - so you should feel pretty good about that
Shelly
Some of you obviously have not idea what you are talking about. The Red Cross sells blood to hospitals to cover operating costs of testing and manufacturing the donated blood into usable products. It is the hospitals that double or triple the price and pass it on to the patients. Also Blood Services, who collect and manufacture blood products and Chapter Services (Diaster Relief, etc) are two separate entities. Check your facts before you distribute half truths. The story of ARC selling cigarettes and coffee during WWII is also not true. ARC had rights to the Red Cross symbol before J&J went into business, and allowed them to use the symbol as well.
It’s funny that the very people who down the Red Cross will be the first ones in line for assistance when there is a diaster where they live.
Richard
One thing that can be overlooked is that the Red Cross emblem itself (like the Red Crescent and the Red Crystal emblems) is incorporated into the Geneva Conventions (a part of international law). The Red Cross emblem was recognised in the Geneva Conventions in the early 1860s. While I’m not an expert at trademark law or international law, wouldn’t the use of the red cross emblem also be covered by international law?