The relief agency just scored a significant victory against the health giant in their fractious legal battle. A federal judge ruled that the American Red Cross never promised to refrain from using its emblem on first aid, health, safety and emergency preparedness products - including products that are sold by companies that licensed the famous symbol. [UPDATE: An earlier version of this post may have implied the case was largely decided, but other J&J claims are pending and product sales have continued].

“I appreciate the court’s decision and hope that Johnson & Johnson will reassess their actions and drop the case altogether,” Mark Everson, the agency’s ceo and president says in a statement. “As the recent wildfires in California demonstrated, the Red Cross has an important mission to perform, and we want to put this distraction behind us and do the work the American people expect us to do.” Everson previously accused J&J of bullying the organization.

Although US District Court Judge Jed Rakoff dismissed just one of eight claims J&J filed against the agency, this was a sensational aspect of the highly publicized case. 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. Here’s the lawsuit and this is the ruling.

The lawsuit isn’t over - a hearing will be held early next year to decide the remaining claims. UPDATE: For its part, the health care giant responded late today to say: “We are pleased with the court’s decision which denies in large part the American Red Cross’ motion to dismiss. The decision clears the way for Johnson & Johnson to proceed with seven of the eight claims that were originally alleged, allowing the case to move forward as planned.”

Nonetheless, the ruling suggests J&J miscalculated. We understand the argument that property rights must be protected and to make exceptions can, indeed, create a slippery slope. But filing suit against a venerable institution many Americans admire was a risky move, especially given that pharma is regularly criticized for putting profits ahead of patients and turning a tin ear to such complaints. A Pharmalot poll found that 57 percent believed J&J made a mistake in pursuing its lawsuit.

J&J may have been willing to absorb a blow to its reputation, but at what price? The Red Cross, meanwhile, is doing a good job of portraying itself as an organization that is being bullied. In its statement today, Everson notes that the Red Cross “helps Americans prevent, prepare for and respond to disasters and emergencies. One way the Red Cross does this is by providing first aid, health, safety and emergency preparedness products at places where people regularly shop. The Red Cross invests the proceeds from the sale of these products into fulfilling its humanitarian mission.”