The red cross symbol is an icon of relief from disaster. For months, it has also been the subject of a festering disagreement between major American institutions: the health care company Johnson & Johnson and the American Red Cross.
The dispute over rights to the symbol erupted to the surface yesterday in federal court in Manhattan, where J.& J. sued the American Red Cross.
The two had shared the symbol amicably for more than 100 years — Johnson & Johnson on its commercial products and the American Red Cross as a symbol of its relief efforts on foreign battlefields and in disasters like floods and tornadoes.
Read through the whole article. The questions raised are complex and pointed.
I imagine the lawyers for each side are already figuring out where to invest their fees.
Jesus should sue both of them.
Yes, at first I thought “What kind of fucking assholes are those J&J guys?”. But after reading the news reports, and discovering that the Red Cross has been pimping their symbol (at a profit) for nail clippers, proctology gloves, dildos (coming soon, to a sex shop near you!), etc., it seems like maybe J&J has a point.
It’s one thing to try and shut down life-saving blood banks, it’s quite another to take on an organization that is shamelessly whoring out its symbol to make a buck. Is there a cafepress site we can go to where we can purchase “Red Cross” laundry detergent, wireless keyboards, 300-count bed sheets, and garden tools?
Was the Red Cross taken over by Republicans? Selling out seems to be their modus operandi.
After reading the article, I think J&J has a real case here. In short, J&J had the symbol first and agreed to let the AMC use it for relief efforts only. Now AMC has chosen to offer commercial products that compete with J&J but have the same symbol.
I think the AMC should change the logo slightly for its commercial products or stop producing them all together since they claim there’s hardly any profit there.
The funny thing is how the AMC is trying to make J&J look like the bad guys, saying that their commercial products would save lives. But clearly, the AMC has violated their contract here.
The AMC have treated everyone I know who have needed them personally like shit so they can piss off.
my my, someone sure is cross.
Don’t forget the the 9/11 scandal where the AMC raised 1 billion in donations and then used not on the victims but on themselves.
Steve – AMC is a movie theatre chain which, if I have translated your ramblings correctly, treats your acquaintances poorly. ARC is what you are trying to hate today.
Anyway, Steve, ARC is mostly made up of volunteers. I assume you already get out of bed at 3AM to find housing for people whose house has burned down, that you fly across the country and miss your family for a month to serve flooding victims you have never met? If not, then maybe you should volunteer and make the ARC a better organization.
I worked at a blood processing center for a year. I can assure everyone here who ever wondered…
I never once witnessed a vampire mafia stealing blood. Well, at least if there is a vampire mafia, they were not getting the blood from us.
#9 – Not blood, personality, which would explain your lack of one.
I see James has moved from indiscriminate liberal bashing to below the belt personal attacks.
I for one an heartened that our blood supply is safe from the Vampire Mafia.
Or maybe thats just what Greg wants us to think….
#11,
He is just bitter that I purchased Apple stock on the morning before the earnings report then sold it during the afterhours over hype spike and made big piles of cash.
Apple fanboy dude out there who bought Apple stock from me at at 151, thank you!!!
The Red Cross has, of late, embroiled itself in controversy after controversy. 9/11, Katrina, FDA fines, J&J. This is not the glorious and selfless organization of yesteryear. Maybe it’s time they get smacked around a little bit and realize, their mission is to save lives, not to make money.
#10, James:
Not that your comment really means anything, coming from you…
Why doesn’t the RED CROSS simply work out a licensing deal with J&J to use the symbol.
It seems that J&J is in the right here. If 100% of the profits from the items were going to the Red Cross, I would crucify J&J. But in this situation, the Red Cross is being STUPID. Just because they are nice people doing charitable work, does NOT make them SMART or right all the time.
Don
@ 4
“In short, J&J had the symbol first and agreed to let the AMC use it for relief efforts only. ”
I don’t think that J & J had the symbol first. The Red Cross has been using “The Red Cross” since 1864 internationally and AMC was founded in 1881 in America and I bet they started to use the symbol right way.
I support the American Red Cross in their disaster relief and blood bank operations. I do believe J&J does have a case here and it will be interesting to see if the court of public opinion will side with ARC long before the actual courts decide the case.
As for 9/11 and Katrina criticism, I believe it is unfair to describe it as scandal or controversy. Immediately after 9/11 the ARC setup a relief fund which collected hundreds of millions of dollars within days. Once the ARC realized that payouts to 9/11 families bordered on lottery-like millions, they announced that any future donations to the fund would be reserved for future disaster relief. Once Congress passed their own 9/11 Airline Protection Act, which added millions of payouts to victim’s families, the Red Cross held back more of the initial funds collected for future disaster relief. IMHO, a smart decision albeit without the option for a donator to request a refund if they so inclined.
As for Katrina, I’ve always felt that the media misunderstood the organizational challenges presented to both government and non-governmental parties to provide comprehensive relief to the Katrina affected areas. First, the geographic element was huge, an area the size of Great Britain were in need of relief. Second, both communication and transportation infrastructure were destroyed or crippled on a large scale. Third, the security issues involved with this operation were unheard of in the US. Media organizations descended on the affected area and reported on hotspots. If they felt threatened or helpless, they could leave unlike relief organizations who would be the target of desperate mobs. Add to the lingering criminal fraud of Katrina area residents and media coverage of ARC efforts outside the context of scale and you have “controversy”
Sorry for the long post, I’ve had that bottled up for a while and when I read 9/11 and Katrina criticism to undermine the whole organization, I blew.
Seriously, the American Red Cross has an incredible mission and I hope that Dvorak readers realize its value and donate. How many times have you watched breaking news of natural or man-made disasters with victims from any socio-economic background and the American Red Cross is already there providing assistance?
Just for the record, Michael Brown of FEMA was an idiot, but I believe that any bureaucratic entity would have been overwhelmed by this disaster but perhaps to a lesser degree.
The Red Cross, valuable as it is, is clearly in the wrong here. They’re not just using another company’s trademark to compete with that company, they’re selling that trademark to third parties so those parties can profit. Not enough money is going to the charity to justify it, and many of the products are junk, which is going to hurt the red cross- more so if people star viewing them as just another business.
BTW, another black mark on the American Red Cross is the obscene salary of Martha Evens She earned over $650,000. Of course the Board of Directors later canned her.
Also, as the ARC is enacted by an Act of Congress, they are paid to provide relief efforts at disasters. While it is true that most are volunteers, not all are and not all of their money comes from donations.
It’s hard to support the Red Cross for anything when they won’t allow the red star of david just as the red crescent is used.
I’m not trying to side with the Red Cross or make any legal statement but it seems like to me J&J doesn’t really even use the symbol much anymore. Am I wrong? I don’t see it on their Band-aids boxes or Tylenol? Is it on their first aid products?
I’m so ticked over this. Where can we draw the line on what constitutes an actual, ‘trade-markable’ symbol? It’s a plus sign! Watch out, math teachers and M*A*S*H*! And the Rojo.com white plus sign on a red background is just too close. That would fall under the copyright and trademark phrase ‘confusingly similar.’
I’ve noticed Volvo’s new symbol looks an awfully like the symbol for ‘male.’ I’m thinking a class-action suit: all males vs. Volvo.
I’m going to trademark an octagon and go after every state in this county that has a stop sign. Or maybe I’ll trademark a circle and insist that Japan changes their flag.
Give me a break!
#8…Al….thanks, my white wall needed those 200 splashes of coffee I spit all over them reading your first sentance. 🙂
Fusion and Libertician got it all about right.
#8 – Doh! That’s what I get for using #4s post… 🙁
#6 – I personally know one volunteer who went down LA for weeks after Katrina. He isn’t the reason I’m “cross”. The ARC has treated some of my family members like crap and that’s why I don’t give them a damn thing.
#17 – I hauled trailers down the Baton Rouge for FEMA within a week of Katrina because the local RV dealer could not find enough drivers. I volunteered and then found out we got paid for it. I my own vacation and used the money for expenses and gave the rest to the Salvation Army.
I can say that anyone who was not down there really should not complain about FEMA for not getting there immediately. We drove over 100 miles of interstate that had to be cleared of debris before it could be used. Fortunately for us it was cleared by the time we went through. I even saw pieces of equipment that they had left behind going through.
The pictures and video did not do it justice.
My first impression was that J&J is not only wrong, but also certifiably insane. I calmed down and read the article just to get the facts. Basically, if the Red Cross were the plaintiff, then I have no qualms with J&J.
After reading the first paragraph, however, my initial feelings were confirmed: J&J is not only wrong, but also certifiably insane. The article states that “J.& J. sued the American Red Cross.”
There is no way they can come out ahead in this lawsuit. If they win, the perception (and reality) is that they fucked over the Red Cross… congratulations?! And this lawsuit will directly take money away from the Red Cross’s relief efforts, likely costing lives.
You know what? I never am this impassioned about anything, but now I must say this: fuck you, Johnson & Johnson. May the ones responsible for this suit burn in hell.
#14 – Your worship is noted.
Like #23 – When I first heard the story on NPR I thought to myself “why is J&J suiing for using the red cross? I’ve never seen it on any of their products.” A red cross is the last thing I think of when I think J&J – I usually think baby shampoo.
Is J & J going to sue the military for using it on rescue and medical vehicles? Wouldn’t it be a symbol in public domain if it is used (possible created) by the government?
No, Johnson and JOhnson did not have the symbol first. The American Red Cross had the symbol as a part of the International Federation and was formed first. Five years later, Johnson and JOhnson asked the ARC to use their symbol. They, along with others were granted permission to use the symbol. Later, Congress gave the ARC exclusive rights to the symbol but grandfathered in Johnson and JOhnson. Unfortunately, now they are wanting the Red Cross. Don’t sue an organization that makes less than $10 million when Johnson and JOhnson makes over $5 billion. They are crazy!
THE FACTS AND LEGAL ISSUES IN JOHNSON & JOHNSON SUIT AGAINST THE AMERICAN RED CROSS
Edited for brevity.