[Insane] American Red Cross Sued

I don't think you're looking at this objectively. from the way I read it, these are products that the red cross is selling with johnson&johnson's trademark. if i'm reading correctly, this isn't charity by the red cross, its a money making venture.

 

Yep, that is how I see it too.

 

I still don't feel like I know enough about it, but I'd tend to side with J&J. If you're selling the same sorts of products J&J is selling and using the same trademark, that's going to cause some confusion in the market. And, if it's not you yourself doing it, but rather you sold the license to use the trademark to some third for-profit business, I think that just makes it a bit worse. They probably should have fought this out a hundred years ago. It's probably bad karma to sue the Red Cross, but it is not clear from the article how it is they are justified in using the trademark on commercial products.

 

I had no idea J&J had a red cross logo. It's always been the scripts "Johnson + Johnson". Is anybody really confusing the two? Is this taking money out of J&J's pocket?

 

In the end though that money comes back to the Red Cross fund and isn't redistributed in the form of profit to shareholders. The Red Cross has long sold material with its logo such as T-Shirts, hats and pins. While Johnson & Johnson may claim the trademark as dating back to 1887 the Red Cross as an organization has long predated that even if they weren't granted a Congressional Charter until 1900 they were well known as an organization long before that.

 

johnson and johnson however still has a responsibility to its shareholders, which includes protecting its trademark

edit: but I will take juanvaldez's approach, i really don't enough about it.

 

i understand j&j's position legally. i do. but still. geez. it's the freaking red cross. they're a non-profit that does immense good in this world. i think i'd let it slide from a p.r. standpoint...NOT being the huge corporation that decided to sink money into attorneys to sue a non-profit. i doubt red cross is creating any real confusion in j&j's markets.

 

branding is a big deal in the corporate world, I don't think some of us realize the important of a trademark.

I used to post in a hip hop forum alot a few years ago. one of the constant topics was how did master p sell so many albums, when quite frankly most of his music sucked, and the music on his label sucked. the answer is master p learned how to market his label.

he no longer sold music, he sold "no limit records", the tank to you guys who listen to rap. its the same with everything. how loyal are you to "nike", "polo", etc. there is a thread on the aggressive marketing of mcdonalds to kids that was just started two days ago.

the brand is everything. how many times do you get a cut and go look for that certain brand of bandages? its just as important if not more than the quality of the product. brand loyalty, they teach it first year marketing classes in business school.

 

i realize it.

i still think this is goofy.

 

I agree with Johnson & Johnson on this. However, the Red Cross should charge J&J for all of the free advertising and goodwill generated by the Red Cross that J&J gets by having a trademark taken from the original American Red Cross.

 

I don't know the history of Johnson & Johnson but I wouldn't be surprised if they trademarked the red cross after hearing about Clara Barton's work in the Civil War and the International Red Cross. So while Johnson & Johnson may have trademarked it they might've been infringing on a symbol that had already been well known. So while they claim trademark infringement more than a 100 years ago they were the ones to infringe on the Red Cross initially.

This would be like if I had found out that nobody had trademarked the Star of David so I trademarked it for a line of Kosher foods.

 

I believe Red cross logo is more prominent in J&J products sold oversees.

As has been mentioned, logo is a BIG DEAL in marketing.

J&J might also be worried about QC on the prodcuts sold by Red Cross and then their image taking a hit. But then again, J&J has had its own runs with QC.

 

That's not how trademark infringement works. You may be thinking of copyright infringement. Trademarks rights are obtained through the use of the trademark in commerce, not through the artistic creation of the trademark itself.

 

Strip the logo on all future Red Cross products or re-design it so it's not an infringement. What J&J is asking for is pretty ridiculous.
Red Cross Mister:


J&J First Aid Kit


Not hard to argue trademark infringement. But something more reasonable should be worked out in the courts.

Evan

 

wouldnt be a first time.


i know red cross does a lot of good work but its still no reason, or a free pass, to violate a companies trademark and trust.

Plus, lets remember that red cross helps a lot of people, but that doesnt prevent the company heads of acting in self interested way.

it doesnt seem like j&j is actually for blood...

 

Well, there's still the angle that J&J sales are hurt by an entity selling products with a similar logo. Is it ethical if the charity makes its money at the expense of someone else? It becomes an ends & means debate.

I don't think the suit is frivolous, but it should be resolved gently.

Evan

 

I guess the other issue to me is how specific is that "red cross". I don't know much about copyright law but aren't there issues pertaining to creativity, like if something is so mundane you can't claim exclusive rights to it.

 

So if an organization is doing something for charity it can do no wrong? If you owned a product, had a recognizable logo, and then a charitable organization came along and started selling low quality products and slapping your logo on it -- it would be alright? This seems more like a post designed to say "OMG lawyers evil" than anything else.