Generally speaking, if a company doesn't enforce their trademark, they may be acquiescing their rights to the trademark. I think that may be one of the overriding concerns here. That said, the bad PR from the general public from this can't be good at all.
ethically is it right to steal someone else's product? Red cross should know better and for them to do something like that to a business who has assisted them is like a friend back stabbing. nope. no "ethical" argument here...just venom about big business and lawyers
This isn't like the red cross copied J+J. They have been using it for longer than J+J. J+J prides itself on being a family company, this was a dumb part on their end.
It is all about protecting your brands and trademarks. If you give people too much you run the risk of losing your rights to it further down the line. It sounds dumb but companies have to do this. Like with UT and TAMU and the sawed off shirts. If you give in you allow people to use your trademarked items and eventually they could say they have been using it for X amount of years and claim it as their own. As crappy as it sounds it is a necessity.
No. But there is a very fine line between what J&J appears to be distinguishing as "profit making endeavors" and charity. One that I find lacking in particular merit. I understand the impetus to maintain a trademark, but I think that 1) Publicity-wise, this is just plain daffy. and 2) From a consumer standpoint, arguing that the american red cross is competing with J&J from a logo standpoint is idiotic. The red cross is a rather well known charity with a *gasp* red cross logo. Making an argument about the method of logo "use" seems silly, given that the intent in either case is charity, not competition. Furthermore, your argument is also weird, given that are most certainly not talking about some out of the blue "charitable organization that came along and started selling low quality products and slapping your logo on it ". The red cross has been using this logo for years. A better analogy is apple computer vs. apple records, and the court still ruled in apple computer's favor after the itune/ipod lawsuit simply because no reasonable person would confuse the two. I'd argue that's the legal reality here as well. For all the people who seem to think that I am spun up about lawyers and "big business", please point out where I have said anything to that point. Otherwise, please cease attempting to pigeonhole me.
I understand the "charity" angle, but it does always make me a little confused when people assume that just because non-profit corporate dividends are going to individual shareholders (as oppossed to being used by the company itself to fund a specific charity project), that those dollars can't also be used for charitable purposes. People can, and often are, charitable with their money, too. Heck, I'd even venture to guess a lot of J&J shareholders contribute to the Red Cross.
You're correct and my mistake. That said though Johnson & Johnson likely only started to use the red cross to capitalize off of the work done by the Red Cross organization.
Except that its possible that Johnson & Johnson stole the red cross logo by capitalizing off of the Red Cross organization which long predates the US Congress Charter and the Johnson & Johnson's trademark. The way I see this argument is that while the US government didn't give an official charter until 1900 the international Red Cross had existed before that and should argue that Johnson & Johnson wouldn't have even had that logo without the international Red Cross.
Did you mean "for-profit"? Non-profits don't distribute dividends to shareholders. While yes shareholders of a for profit company can give that money to charity the difference is that they aren't required to. The whole point of a non-profit is that any profit is dedicated to charity.
or its not possible. i dont want to get into a purely speculation debate...dealing with what we know.
Speculative but not baseless considering the International Red Cross was established in 1864 with the symbol adopted then. It seems odd that Johnson and Johnson in 1887 choose to trademark a brand of medical supplies using the red cross without being aware of that. http://www.redcross.org/museum/history/pre1900.asp For that matter the International Red Cross was recognized in the original Geneva Convention Treaty in 1864. The US as a signatory of that treaty in that case should recognize the existance of the International Red Cross and the use of that logo predating the Johnson and Johnson trademark. So even if Johnson and Johnson claims there is no connection between their use of a red cross with the Red Cross organization that logo and its use by the Red Cross was used long before the trademark.
well it would seem that if red cross had such an issue it would have resolved it over the last 100 years.
sure are a lot of excuses being made. they used something they shouldnt have, or abused the use of something. not even the red cross is perfect...they can do wrong
article says that Red Cross licensed the red cross to other products...I'm assuming that the cut that Red Cross gets goes to charity but that the rest goes into the pockets of the people who paid Red Cross for the license. That seems to be the main problem that Johnson & Johnson has. Seems like Johnson & Johnson couldnt sue the people who bough the license so they went after Red Cross instead.
Not in the UK or Australia. The red cross logo on J&J products aren't seen. This is J&J vs American Red Cross. J&J would'nt have a leg to stand overseas.
You HAVE to protect your trademark. J&J probably didn't even want to sue them, but they have to, because if they don't protect their trademark, they can lose it.
If johnson and johnson is looking to protect that logo, one that I'm sure nobody in the world had ever associated with their company, then they need to sue every hopsital in the world while they're at it.
You're missing the point. The Red Cross logo predates the Johnson and Johnson trademark and was officially recognized by the US. Its not excusing the Red Cross I am making the case they can defend themselves against the legal suit.
