Court Tosses Out Most Of Johnson & Johnson's Trademark Lawsuit Against The Red Cross

from the don't-mess-with-charities dept

Tue, May 20th 2008 10:16am — Mike Masnick

Last summer, we wrote about the absolutely ridiculous situation where Johnson & Johnson decided (against all common sense) to sue the American Red Cross (ARC) for trademark infringement over using (get this...) the red cross to sell products to raise more money for ARC. Beyond just being a really bad PR move to sue one of the world's most respected charities, the legal specifics were quite murky as well. Basically, ARC and J&J had worked out an agreement over a century ago to effectively share the use of the trademark (it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the basic agreement). On top of that, there are laws preventing anyone from falsely using the Red Cross symbol -- and J&J claimed that the companies that ARC licensed the symbol to were doing just that. Luckily, the court has thrown out most of the case, claiming that the law seemed pretty clear in allowing ARC to use the symbol in commercial products, even licensing it out. In fact, the court noted that back in the 80's J&J engaged in a similar promotion where it donated some money from certain products sold to ARC. The judge also noted how ridiculous it is to claim that a charity was doing this for nefarious purposes: "The fact that the ultimate purpose of these licensing activities is a 'charitable purpose' -- i.e. to raise funds that A.R.C., a not-for-profit organization, can utilize for its charitable endeavors -- only further emphasizes their legitimacy." There are still a few parts of the case left unresolved, but the big parts have now all been dismissed.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: red cross, trademark
Companies: johnson & johnson, red cross

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Nate, 20 May 2008 @ 11:20am

Unbelievable...
It is unbelievable that J&J would go after the Red Cross in the first place. I mean, it is a freaking not for profit charity orgaization, not some other company trying to profit. It goes to show how greedy these corporations really are. And further more, it isn't like the Red Cross is somehow cutting into J&J's profits at all. In fact, I bet the Red Cross buy supplies in some form or another from J&J. Or maybe they don't and that is the reason for the malicious lawsuit... who freaking knows. All I know is I will now hold J&J product in different light and there is a strong chance I will avoid them if possible. http://www.custompcmax.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 20 May 2008 @ 11:54am

Not so fast...
As is often stated, trademarks are for consumer protection to avoid consumer confusion. If the ARC is now selling (or licensing other to sell) first-aid and related products, which they had previously agreed to be under the domain of J&J, they are now entering into J&J territory. While, the ARC does a lot of good charitable work, that should not give them a free pass to enter into J&J's business... The fact the J&J has previously run a sales promotion giving a portion of profits to ARC is also irrelevant to the argument.

If a charity were named "Dominos", I think they could successfully argue the right to a "Dominos" trademark. However, it they wanted to start raising money by delivering pizza, I would think things would get pretty sticky...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2008 @ 12:35pm
  
  Re: Not so fast...
  Yeah, but Red Cross is to an extent, a medical charity, and it was registered in Europe before J&J and tried to get registered in America, but there were issues with that
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Rog, 20 May 2008 @ 11:54am

Unbelievable 2.0
You know it wasn't actually J&J that initiated this suit, it was some ambulance chasing attorney. Now that lawyers have proliferated like rats, they have to sit around and dream up people to sue and screw. Basically, there's really not enough work to go around for these lawyers, so they are forced to make things up in order to be employed. There's a special room in hell for these worthless parasites!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chronno S. Trigger, 20 May 2008 @ 11:55am

It may be my history
Between MASH on TV, my mom being a nurse and teaching first aid at the red cross, when I look at the red cross, that's exactly what I think. The only Johnson & Johnson logo I know of is Johnson&Johnson . If that is the same for more people, doesn't that negate the trademark all together?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ehrichweiss, 20 May 2008 @ 11:56am

The ARC
This is a bit off-topic but the ARC might be a not-for-profit but they aren't what most might call a good charity either.

If you don't already know, the ARC doesn't have local chapters or the like that are run by the main organization. Instead each chapter is a franchise that has to pay a hefty sum in yearly dues in order to be able to use the name of the ARC for fund raising events.

A friend of mine ran one of the local chapters in a poor area of the state and they'd collect, say, $135,000 in a year and then have to pay out $125,000 in dues which would then leave all of $10,000 to pay everyone, and still find some way to provide aid for the people in the area. Know what those dues go to? Paying the salaries of the big wigs in the national organization. IIRC they have/had the highest salaries for any non-profit.

In my opinion they're nothing more than a big scam like the Ronald McDonald foundation and other places like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2008 @ 12:39pm
  
  Re: The ARC
  Thing about the Red Cross is it's illegal to bomb them as per the geneva convention. It's the Red Crescent in Islamic areas due to negative historic conectations of the Red Cross on a white background... Crusaders
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ehrichweiss, 20 May 2008 @ 3:16pm
    
    Re: Re: The ARC
    I don't know if I have any issues with the international Red Cross...just the American version. And I don't have a bit of a problem with the people who help those in need either, just the assholes making millions of $$$ off of other people's hard work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2008 @ 2:07pm

Reminds me of a similar case a few years ago of WWE (formerly WWF) suing the World Wildlife Fund over the use of WWF in marketing. In the end they lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DanC, 20 May 2008 @ 4:46pm
  
  Re:
  Other way around. The companies had a 1994 agreement allowing them both to use the initials. The wrestling company violated the agreement, so the Wildlife Fund sued and won. The wrestling company has limited rights to sell old merchandise with their old logo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]