Comments on: J&J Sues Red Cross Over Its Symbol

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:57:42 +0000

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?

By: Shelly

Shelly — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:37:11 +0000

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.

By: sid

sid — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:05:13 +0000

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

By: Sean Dix

Sean Dix — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:55:05 +0000

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

By: JNJ BTW » Blog Archive » And the Coverage Continues…

JNJ BTW » Blog Archive » And the Coverage Continues… — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:30:32 +0000

[...] 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, [...]

By: Lisa Van Syckel

Lisa Van Syckel — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:41:36 +0000

James,

“Make up disorders” ……….

I believe the term is called “Disease Mongering”

By: Jen Morris

Jen Morris — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:30:32 +0000

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.

By: James

James — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:23:47 +0000

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.

By: Glen

Glen — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:35:36 +0000

Sue has hint the nail on the head. good job

By: Sue

Sue — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:35:37 +0000

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…