September 21, 2007
Red Cross Attacks Company's Trademark Charges
By Peter Panepento
The American Red Cross on Thursday asked a federal court to throw out a lawsuit charging that the charity infringed a trademark held by the pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson.
The court action is the Red Cross’s first legal volley against Johnson & Johnson following the company’s move last month to sue the charity. The company alleges the Red Cross violated a long-held trademark by selling products such as humidifiers, toothbrushes, and first-aid kits under its own brand.
Johnson & Johnson says it has the exclusive right to use the red cross symbol on commercial products. In its lawsuit, it asked the court to order the Red Cross to cease the sale of its licensed first-aid products, turn over the proceeds of past sales of such products, and pay damages.
The Red Cross, which has publicly disputed Johnson & Johnson’s claims, filed a motion Thursday at the U.S. District Court in New York, that seeks to dismiss the lawsuit. The nonprofit group says in its claim that it has a right through its Congressional charter to sell products to support its charitable mission.
The charity has also filed a counter-claim against Johnson & Johnson, alleging that the company has been marketing products bearing the red cross logo that extend beyond its boundaries.
The Red Cross states that in addition to selling goods such as first-aid kits and cotton balls — products that are allowed under a longstanding agreement — Johnson & Johnson has been selling products such as light sticks and magnets that bear the red cross symbol. The charity says the company’s use of the symbol on such products violates its trademark.
“While it’s unfortunate that the issue has reached this point, we have an obligation — on behalf of our chapters, blood-donation operations, and hundreds of thousands of volunteers — to protect the proper use of the Red Cross emblem,” Mark Everson , chief executive of the Red Cross, said in a statement.
Johnson & Johnson released a statement today reiterating its reasons for the suit. The company said it would turn over any damages it receives from the suit to charity.
“Our primary goal is simply to restore the long-standing legal boundaries that the ARC and Johnson & Johnson have observed around the Red Cross trademark for more than 100 years,” the company said.
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Red Cross Plans New System to Improve Coordination With Companies
Next: MacArthur Foundation Announces Winners of 'Genius' Prizes
Good for the Red Cross! I’m glad to see the philanthropic community stand up to Johnson and Johnson’s corporate greed. I hope the Red Cross is successful in clarifying its rightful use of the red cross symbol.
— Stephen Sep 21, 01:04 PM #
The red cross doesn’t not have a “rightful use” of the red cross symbol. The trademark belongs to J&J.
— Stacey Sep 22, 10:36 PM #
J&J, after its incorporation in the 1890s, deliberately cashed in on the longstanding reputation of the Red Cross, by using the red cross logo adopted by the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1864. The logo is a deliberate reversal of the Swiss flag, proposed by the Swiss founder of the ICRC. The way I see it, it is J&J who is at fault and should be making restitution and destroying all product with that logo on it, not ARC.
— Melissa Sep 22, 11:27 PM #
Everyone around the world recognizes that the red cross is the international symbol for medical and humanitarian aid, and rightfully belongs to the Red Cross. No matter how J & J obtained rights to use the logo, it was well after the Red Cross had already adopted the symbol. Johnson & Johnson Co. and its EVIL twin, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) belong on the ash heap of history.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-drug-industry-uses-non-profits-to.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-is-pharmaceutical-company-funding.html
— Mark Sep 23, 12:31 PM #
Both have the right to use the symbol, but the Red Cross does not have the right to use it commercially. They claim to use it to sell disaster preparedness kits, but I doubt that humidifiers and deluxe grooming kits are the first things people wish they had in a disaster. Nonprofits can be greedy, too, you know and it is simply naive for those of us in the nonprofit sector to think otherwise.
— Emma Sep 24, 12:59 PM #
I agree with Emma. Whether or not you think that J&J should be able to use the symbol, they have a legal right to it. They were smart businessmen and cashed in on the symbol, but they did it legally. Whether they overstepped their bounds or the Red Cross did, I’m not sure. But I hate it when we just assume that the non-profit is always the victim, and that they should be treated specially. The Red Cross is a huge inefficient bureaucracy, and they shouldn’t be treated any easier than J&J just because they have a social mission.
— Mike Sep 27, 01:25 PM #