JNJ v. American Red Cross

[rhu]

So based on the article in today's Times, I don't see what choice Johnson and Johnson had but to sue the Red Cross:

* JNJ trademarked the symbol in 1887, before the Red Cross was chartered
* The two organizations signed an agreement in 1895, acknowledging that JNJ used the trademark for medical supplies and permitting the ARC to use the symbol in association with their humanitarian relief efforts
* The ARC recently started selling the rights to use their name and symbol on third-party medical supplies (which are commercial products sold for profit and not related to any relief effort).

So it certainly seems that the ARC violated the 1895 agreement, and if JNJ didn't sue then they'd lose all rights to the trademark.

Comments

[michelel72.livejournal.com]

Given the facts as reported, I agree, it seems plainly obvious -- and the ARC spokesman comes off as a jerk. I don't have a particularly high opinion of the ARC anyway, though, for various reasons. So, unless there are factors the article doesn't include, I wish JNJ success.

[lucretia-borgia.livejournal.com]

They're a business, we're a poor, downtrodden aid society...Congress and Public Opinion need to protect us even when we've stolen someone else's trademark!

To be honest, though, I purchased an American Red Cross-branded child nailclipper and digital thermometer at Target recently, and did not for a moment confuse the brand with J&J. J&J uses blue in their designs. This was all red-and-white.