Should J&J Have Sued The Red Cross? Tell Us
12 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // August 11th, 2007 // 8:48 am
For those who aren’t aware, the health care giant, which uses a red cross as its trademark, yesterday filed a lawsuit against the American Red Cross, demanding the charity halt its use of the symbol on products it sells 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 execs say they’re “disappointed” the American Red Cross is now licensing the trademark to other businesses for such products as baby mitts, nail clippers, combs, toothbrushes and humidifiers. In other words, they worry about confusion in the marketplace and infringing on their commercial reputation. Red Cross officials call the suit “obscene,” and accuse the company of trying to “bully” the organization now that negotiations broke down.
Lawsuits often followed failed negotiations. And J&J, like any company, is entitled to defend its property, including trademarks. But in an environment where big drugmakers are regularly criticized for putting profits over patients, does it make sense to run to court and take on an institution that, for many Americans, is seen as an angel who appears in time of need? J&J may prevail in court, but to what extent may it risk its reputation? So what do you think?
Should J&J Have Sued The Red Cross?
- No (56%, 122 Votes)
- Yes (44%, 94 Votes)
Total Voters: 216
Loading ...
Analytical Scientist
The doesn’t seem like a difficult issue at all–the Red Cross is selling property that they don’t own. They can use the logo for themselves as a nonprofit, but J&J owns the commercial rights, and has owned them long before the Red Cross ever existed. After a hundred years of peaceful coexistance, that took a lot of chutzpah.
PR Nightmare
This is just bad business for Johnson & Johnson. Suing a group like the Red Cross that does so much in humanitarian work all over the world… and for what, over a logo? A logo on baby mitts?
The red cross symbol to most people has a meaning of safety and health, not of Johnson & Johnson products. Besides, wasn’t the logo was first used by the Swiss anyway?
I suppose that will be the next lawsuit coming. J&J vs Switzerland.
I feel bad for the Corporate Communication folks at J&J. I would not want to be in their shoes right now.
Lisa Van Syckel
Swissair also bears this logo on their planes….
Will J&J sue them too……..
shade
I just read some of the history of the symbol and now I can’t remember where it was. In designing it they took the Swiss flag and switched the colors. Switzerland was already known as neutral. I’m sure Wikipedia has a brilliant entry on it.
That said, I wouldn’t think J&J would want to be exchanging punches with an NPO with the difficulties they’re having right now. FCPA violations, whistleblower lawsuits, settlement for inadequate safety labeling, etc. They don’t really need another blow to their image, IMO. Even if they are in the right, it just doesn’t look good.
Spectator Physician
By appearances, the American Red Cross is acting with all the self-righteousness of a behemoth non-profit, with none of the right. Nevertheless, it’s yet another colossally bad PR move by big pharma, in a world where few read beyond the headlines.
Bruce Grant
Analytical Scientist to the contrary…
The International Committee for the Red Cross was founded in 1863
The American Red Cross was founded in 1881
And Johnson & Johnson first began using a red cross in trade in 1887.
The trademark may legally belong to them on the technicality that they registered it and the ARC didn’t, but it isn’t J&J’s on the grounds of pure historical pedigree.
Disputes like this don’t reach this state without multiple failures to reach an amicable agreement along the way. We may never know all of the missteps that led to this mess finally being played out in public, but it’s a sure thing that the story is far from simple…and fault far from one-sided.
Dollars and Sense
Bruce, very true.
And if this didn’t somehow involve a large amount of money they feel the illegal use of the red cross is generating in someone else’s pocket, they wouldn’t have stepped into this arena.
They knew it was going to be bad, but I suppose the estimated profit margin they see is large enough to risk it?
Dr. Mike
Give me a break. Just more corporate greed and arrogance. They must have and control everything from schools to logos to the internet. Spare me a break. Geesh…..
Robert
Pharmagossip is linking to you with a red nazi swastika.
I dont think given any circumstance this is appropriate. I expect nothing from pharmagossip but Ed you are a professional journalist. I would monitor your site more closely. It implies you are ok with this image and what it means.
disabled
In the AP version of the J&J sues Red Cross article it states “The suit asks the Red Cross to turn over the products in question to New Brunswick, N.J.-based Johnson & Johnson for destruction and also seeks unspecified punitive damages.”
How about Johnson and Johnson gives the products to the needy, homeless shelters, victims of disasters, soldiers, etc instead of destroying them. It said these products include baby mitts, nail clippers, combs, toothbrushes, hand sanitizers and humidifiers. Instead of spending funds to sue Red Cross how about spending funds to do a USA epidemiological study to further investigate the risks associated with development of tendon disorders and musculo-skeletal and peripheral nervous system injuries many have reported to FDA medwatch from their product.
Irish Medicines Board Drug Safety Newsletter - Drug Safety - January 2002 - Issue No.14 The Pharmacovigilance Unit, Irish Medicines Board,Earlsford Centre, Earlsford Terrace, Dublin2.
Levofloxacin (Tavanic) ” The Company responsible for marketing the above product in Ireland have agreed to undertake an epidemiological study to further investigate the risks associated with development of tendon disorders.”
Atty General Illinois and Public Citizen has also petitioned FDA in this regard with no response.Dear Doctor letters regarding the Fluoroquinolone “Levaquin/Levofloxacin also known as Tavanic, Prixar, were issued in France and Italy to warn of the higher incidence rates of tendon injuries in 2001 and 2002 with increased risks for those also using corticosteroids.
No Dear Doctor letters in America!
Safety Newsletter issued by WHO World health Organization- Belgium- “Belgium. The Belgian Pharmacovigilance Centre has received 161 reports of levofloxacin (Tavanic) associated tendinopathy, including 68 reports of tendon rupture, since the drug was marketed in 2000 through to 16 April 2002. The centre notes that, although data from spontaneous reports are insufficient for risk comparisons, the number of cases of tendon disorders reported in association with levofloxacin to date is much higher than that for ciprofloxacin (22 cases), norfloxacin (8), ofloxacin (63) and pefloxacin (16).
How about warning US doctors and patients with Dear Doctor letters! for a company that uses the red cross symbol that signifies to the masses safety and health, how about dear doctor letters in the USA to prevent additional crippling adverse events and disclose the true risk versus benefit, so that physicians stop overprescribing when not indicated for the infections for which such a drug is supposed to be prescribed, versus the inappropriate overprescribing without regard to risk that results in avoidable adverse events.
Pharma Employee
This is a tough call folks. We live in a world where most of the time we only get part of the story. My take is that J&J isn’t the bully here but the ARC. I read somewhere that J&J had tried to reach an amicable resolution with the ARC but the ARC wouldn’t enter into talks or third-party arbitration. The ARC has its interests to protect and an image/reputation to maintain and obviously felt that those responsibilities were more important than being a good corporate citizen and playing fair. It sounds to me like the ARC never expected J&J to do anything about this and rather than ruffle the feathers of their partners, they decided to stonewall J&J. Well, J&J called their bluff and decided to do what was necessary to play fair.
I know that pharma companies are the hot item to beat on right now. Everyone wants their drugs for free but they also want the latest and greatest research to solve our health problems. Oh, and people also invest in these companies hoping they will turn a profit. Does that sound like the people are talking out of both sides of their mouth? I am not saying that pharma companies are blameless, but I can certainly understand the difficult conundrum they are in.
In the pharma community there is a ton of pressure to develop cutting edge products with less and less money in less and less time. Why? For most companies its to keep stock holders happy because unless there is double digit growth your stock gets tanked. So in this situation with J&J and ARC, when does the corporation protect its property and when doesn’t it. We are often reminded as employees that improper use of company trademarks will give competitors the opportunity to challenge our position in court and thus take away one of the keys to product sales…branding identify. In this world where sales are driven by marketing and advertising, corporate America relies heavily on trademark recognition. Marketing giants like P&G would perish quickly if they couldn’t count on the fact they only they can use the Tide or Mr Clean logos.
At some point you have to ask the ARC why this mutually agreeable relationship of sharing the symbol has gone south. If someone robs my house, do I let them for fear of infringing on their personal liberties or do I call in the authorities to sort out the right thing to do? That may not be a fair analogy but it makes my point.
Helen Corvino
For those naysayers who see J&J as only a profitmonger, I would suggest they look at not only the millions J&J donates to the Red Cross enabling their work but also the multitude of charitable works done by J&J in addition to funding the Red Cross. It’s easy to throw stones but more charitable to look at both sides of the story, seek the truth and understand that most lawsuits can be settled amicably if both parties are willing.