August 09, 2007
Drug Company Sues Red Cross Over Trademark Use
By Peter Panepento
Johnson & Johnson has filed a lawsuit against the American Red Cross, alleging the charity is violating a long-held trademark by selling products such as humidifiers, toothbrushes, and combs under its own brand.
The health-care manufacturing company claims in its suit that it has the exclusive right to use the Red Cross trademark on commercial products. In the suit, Johnson & Johnson is ordering the American Red Cross to destroy all of its licensed first-aid products, turn over the proceeds of its past sales of such products, and pay damages and court costs.
The American Red Cross, in Washington, says it plans to fight the suit vigorously.
“For a multi-billion-dollar drug company to claim that the Red Cross violated a criminal statute that was created to protect the humanitarian mission of the Red Cross — simply so that J&J can make more money — is obscene,” Mark W. Everson, Red Cross’s president, said in a written statement.
The Red Cross started a large-scale effort to sell licensed products about three years ago. It works with several national manufacturers to create products such as first-aid kits, baby products, rubber gloves, disaster radios, and nursing shoes. The charity earns royalty payments based on product sales.
The charity says the product sales — in addition to raising money — are part of its mission of helping people prepare for emergencies and disasters.
But Johnson & Johnson — which makes name-brand products such as Tylenol, Band-Aid, Visine, and Neutrogena, and which posted 2006 sales of more than $53-billion — says the Red Cross is stepping over long-held legal boundaries by marketing such products.
The New Brunswick, N.J., company said it has held the rights to use the Red Cross trademark on commercial products since 1887, before the formation of the American Red Cross. The American Red Cross has the rights only to use the trademark in connection with its nonprofit relief services, Johnson & Johnson claims.
Johnson & Johnson officials said they filed the suit against the American Red Cross only after the nonprofit organization declined to allow a mediator to resolve the dispute. “[Johnson & Johnson] was left with no choice but to seek protection of our trademark rights through the courts,” the company said in a statement released this morning.
The American Red Cross, however, argues that Johnson & Johnson’s lawsuit is an attempt to interfere with its ability to fulfill its mission.
“The Red Cross products that J&J wants to take away from consumers and have destroyed are those that help Americans get prepared for life’s emergencies,” Mr. Everson said. “I hope that the courts and Congress will not allow Johnson & Johnson to bully the American Red Cross.”
For more on the Red Cross’s and other charity licensing arrangements, as well as controversy surrounding Red Cross’s marketing efforts, read The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s recent coverage.
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Rural America Must Be Philanthropic Priority, Conference Speakers Say
Next: Rockefeller Commits $70-Million to Climate-Change Response
Regardless of their mission, they should not be allowed to take someone else’s trademarked logo (the cross) and use it for their own purposes. I think J&J is right to do this.
— CJ Campbell Aug 9, 01:17 PM #
How can a large multi-billion drug company villainize the Red Cross (which is part of an International Movement, by the way).
— C Anderson Aug 9, 02:16 PM #
I checked the J&J web site; they don’t have a Red Cross brand of anything. Their use of a red cross on wound care products, for example, is enhanced by the public’s association of the red cross with the Red Cross. J&J enjoys this benefit without payment to the Red Cross; it seems reasonable that they should at least allow the Red Cross to use their own symbol on their own products, such as flashlights, which have nothing whatsoever to do with J&J product categories.
— J Koerner Aug 9, 03:17 PM #
In light of Johnson & Johnson’s decision to sue the American Red Cross, I will boycott its products and actively encourage my family and friends to do the same. The fact that a $53.3 billion company would target one of the nation’s premier humanitarian organizations in an attempt to make more money is appalling. It is my hope that the Red Cross will prevail in this legal dispute and that Johnson and Johnson’s profits will suffer as a result of this public relations debacle. Johnson and Johnson’s actions in filing this “civil complaint” expose the depth of corporate greed in America today.
— Stephen Hall Aug 9, 06:37 PM #
No one is stomping on the mission of the Red Cross but if it needs to find a logo or brand that doesn’t stomp of the long-held rights of J&J. Why is J&J the villain? The Red Cross is stepping into the commerce arena by producing its own products for sale. They must, therefore, abide by commercial laws and not invoke their nonprofit mission as an excuse to use J&J’s legally obtained logo, etc.
— GC Aug 13, 03:15 PM #
What must be remembered here is that the American Red Cross’s Congressional Charter allows the American Red Cross to use the red cross symbol to support their humanitarian mission. The items in question, which bear the red cross emblem, specifically support that mission, and a portion of the money raised from the sales of those items goes back to the American Red Cross to their support disaster relief efforts. Being a private non-profit organization, the Red Cross relies on donated funds to provide emergency aid to disaster victims. Given the modern era of corporate sponsorship, I feel the Red Cross’s actions are justified and should be supported. I would rather see J&J offer a substantial donation rather than a lawsuit. In reviewing J&J’s lawsuit, one can see their vindictiveness. Not only does J&J wish the Red Cross to cease using the red cross emblem, but they also ask for the items displaying this emblem to be destroyed. In essence, J&J is calling for the destruction of items that could legitamately aid people in times of need. This doesn’t sound like a “caring” company to me. I sincerely hope the courts see this suit for what it is; greed, pure and simple.
— JW Aug 15, 12:10 AM #