According to Johnson & Johnson lawyers, the American Red Cross can only use the red cross for non profit purposes. Since they started licensing it to businesses for commercial use, Johnson & Johnson decided to sue.
Discuss Add this link to...Bury Add to:
| Bookmarks
written by diogenes 482 days ago
Rating: 0
| Rate Comment:+-
Oh Stella!
written by oddknock 479 days ago
Rating: 0
| Rate Comment:+-
Intellectual "property" gone mad.
written by rwooten 477 days ago - show/hide this comment
Rating: -1
| Rate Comment:+-
The Red Cross has obviously lost its mind. Licensing the red cross symbol to J&J's competitors is clearly a no-no.
written by OnlyAnEgg 477 days ago
Rating: 2
| Rate Comment:+-
Hmmph! No good deed goes unpunished. Looks to me like J&J had first dibs on the symbol, but allowed non-profit USRC to use it nonetheless. But if USRC is 'marketing' the symbol, that is actually competing against the owner of the trademark.
A healthy resolution would be to smack both hands and tell them to behave: no punitive damages, but no more kits-for-profit.
written by thorswitch 476 days ago
Rating: 0
| Rate Comment:+-
If the Red Cross is taking any money it makes from the kits and putting it back into their disaster relief funds, does that really count as "profit?" They're not putting these kits out into the general marketplace, as I understand it, but instead are offering them through their website.
If they're making products and selling them in the open market in competition to J&Js products, and if they were not using the proceeds to help with their disaster relief efforts, I could see that maybe being an issue - but that's not what's happening as best at I can tell.
written by OnlyAnEgg 474 days ago
Rating: 0
| Rate Comment:+-
"offering them through their website" is indeed putting them into the general marketplace; I do as much shopping on-line as in a mall. If I buy a Red-Cross first aid kit instead of J&J's, then they have lost that sale. It may not be malicious competition, but that's not the question.
Comments
Oh Stella!
Intellectual "property" gone mad.
Hmmph! No good deed goes unpunished. Looks to me like J&J had first dibs on the symbol, but allowed non-profit USRC to use it nonetheless. But if USRC is 'marketing' the symbol, that is actually competing against the owner of the trademark.
A healthy resolution would be to smack both hands and tell them to behave: no punitive damages, but no more kits-for-profit.
If the Red Cross is taking any money it makes from the kits and putting it back into their disaster relief funds, does that really count as "profit?" They're not putting these kits out into the general marketplace, as I understand it, but instead are offering them through their website.
If they're making products and selling them in the open market in competition to J&Js products, and if they were not using the proceeds to help with their disaster relief efforts, I could see that maybe being an issue - but that's not what's happening as best at I can tell.
"offering them through their website" is indeed putting them into the general marketplace; I do as much shopping on-line as in a mall. If I buy a Red-Cross first aid kit instead of J&J's, then they have lost that sale. It may not be malicious competition, but that's not the question.