Son of a bitch!

[rgraham666]

I do not believe this.

Johnson and Johnson sues the Red Cross for using the Red Cross.

Festering pond slime!

 

[galaxygoddess]

I heard part of this, but I have to say: What the HOLY FUCK??


I'm sorry I try not to cuss too much... but that's just... damn

 

[LadynStFreknBed]

wtf?

Those bastards!
If I owned a store, I'd pull all their products off the shelves and post signs explaining my actions.

 

[OhMissScarlett]

They should sue Tonga also. *nods*

Their flag is a total rip off.

 

[Liar]

Red Cross emblem:

Official ICRC (International Commitee of the Red Cross) symbol since 1864
Geneva convention concerning the Red Cross ratified by the US in 1882.
Johnson & Johnson trademark in the US since 1905. Which it should never have been, unless Congress had dragged it's heels for years in enforcing the Geneva convention.

So go fuck yourself, J&J. In fact, the Red Cross should sue you.

 

[MarshAlien]

I smell a boycott...

 

[MagicaPractica]

How... preposterous. Why the heck would they think this was a good idea?

 

[galaxygoddess]

Me thinks they hired a new guy, and neew guy is about to loose his job. Why else would they SUDDENLY decide to do this? They hired someone new who decided he could make his way to the top by increasing revenues in the most heinous way possible. Maybe in his small mind this is a good idea, but by large, if he's not fired, J&J will go out of business quickly over this asinine bullshit.

 

[MagicaPractica]

Me thinks they hired a new guy, and neew guy is about to loose his job. Why else would they SUDDENLY decide to do this? They hired someone new who decided he could make his way to the top by increasing revenues in the most heinous way possible. Maybe in his small mind this is a good idea, but by large, if he's not fired, J&J will go out of business quickly over this asinine bullshit.

This is a major corporation. One little idiot cannot go out and file a lawsuit like this. It's got to go through at least a couple offices before it happens. I'm thinking it's a top down thing based on the fact that they trademarked it. But it's stupid. Talk about losing the good will of the people.

 

[galaxygoddess]

There's too much here going on, that no one knows the whole truth. Either way, this is going to be bad, very bad. I kind of pity the stupid at this point.

And like Liar pointed out, red cross has been using this symbol way before J&J was a twinkle in someone's brain.

 

[MagicaPractica]

Their rational...

"Johnson & Johnson, though, says that the Red Cross has stepped out of its traditional use of the logo and has launched products such as first aid kits, nail clippers, combs and toothbrushes that directly compete with J&J's own products."


http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2851498.ece


As the article states, they are courting a public relations nightmare with this lawsuit.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Madness. I wonder if that odd and weirdly disconnected paragraph on "preparedness products" might be at the bottom of it. I seem to think that Johnson and Johnson make first aid products - possibly they see the Red Cross as a threat if the Red Cross is heading into territory that Johnson and Johnson is selling in. Still, it's ridiculous to sue the Red Cross. I'm generally too scatter-brained to manage a really consistent boycott of a company's products, but I think I could summon the energy for this one.

ETA - Ah, cheers MagicaPractica. I was writing as you were posting.

 

[MarshAlien]

And according to the J&J website, it's not so much about the products that the Red Cross has launched themselves, as that they've started licensing other companies to use the trademark to sell things like humidifiers. It's actually a fairly intelligent posting, although given the media slant, probably insufficient to stave off the unfavorable publicity.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I found a feedback page on J&J's website, and sent them this note;

I am writing to you re: this report;
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/DCW08208082007-1.htm

I find it incredible that your corporation would do anything so
in-advised as to threaten one of the most well-respected good-will
organisations in the world.

You are guaranteeing yourselves a storm of bad publicity from this--
although, it can only help the Red Cross in its efforts to educate
the public.

Personally, I will be boycotting J&J products as much as possible
for the duration of your ridiculous foray into corporate shark-land.

By the way, it's time to update your over-strict feedback form.

 

[oggbashan]

Does that mean that the manufacturers of sexy latex nurse uniforms can be sued by Johnson and Johnson AND the Red Cross?

Og

 

[galaxygoddess]

Does that mean that the manufacturers of sexy latex nurse uniforms can be sued by Johnson and Johnson AND the Red Cross?

Og

I suppose J&J will sue http://www.heartattackgrill.com/ too?

I know the nurses association was trying to...

 

[john-the-author]

I went to the J&J website and sent them the following comment:

--------------------------------------------------------
I am deeply impressed that J&J would think of suing the Red Cross. Yes, I'm sure that someone in Corporate Legal thinks they have right on their side and there's a buck to be made, but this is simply not right. If this is a big problem for you, it'd be far better for J&J to negotiate a deal with the Red Cross and get the positive PR benefits instead of the negatives. What you're doing is going to have the same level of PR blowback as, oh, suing the Girl Scouts for selling cookies. You can't win. And I'll be glad to purchase my Band-Aids (t-effing-m!) from someone else.

I'm sending information about this to as many people as I can to encourage them to join me in not purchasing J&J products. I'm a writer and a public speaker, so I have plenty of venues to do this in. I'm also attending a regional conference of other writers next week in San Francisco, so I'm sure that, all told, I can get news about this to about 1500 people in the next month or so.

You're amazing. Dumb, but amazing.

Yours truly,

---------------------------------------

 

[galaxygoddess]

Ya know... I have a huge family and I happen to work for a law firm, AND I have some friends at the bar association...

I'm sure a huge chunk of a county in a boycott alone would be..... tight.

 

[BlackShanglan]

And according to the J&J website, it's not so much about the products that the Red Cross has launched themselves, as that they've started licensing other companies to use the trademark to sell things like humidifiers. It's actually a fairly intelligent posting, although given the media slant, probably insufficient to stave off the unfavorable publicity.

Mmmm. Interesting! Gets stickier as you go down into it, doesn't it?

That's a fair point on licensing for subsidiary brands, especially if they're branching out further away from the "emergency preparedness" mission. Possibly J&J is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

[LadynStFreknBed]

Red Cross's Response to My Inquiry

Dear Sheila:

Thank you for contacting the American Red Cross to share your concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. The Red Cross is outraged that J&J would try to restrict how the Red Cross uses its own emblem to achieve its health, safety, and disaster preparedness and response mission. The Red Cross will be aggressively defending its right to use the Red Cross emblem.

The American Red Cross has used the Red Cross emblem since its inception in 1881. J&J started using a red cross symbol as a trademark in 1887. Congress granted the American Red Cross the exclusive right to use the Red Cross emblem in 1905, and at the same time allowed third parties that had used a red cross symbol before 1905 to continue using a red cross symbol for limited purposes. These third-party users are called ?grandfathered users? and J&J is one of several grandfathered users. The American Red Cross has been offering first aid kits for over 100 years.

While J&J appears to think that the Red Cross products are only about making money, these products are really about preparing individuals and families for life?s emergencies and improving health and wellness.

It is amazing that J&J has asked the Court to require that the Red Cross surrender all of its inventory of preparedness products for destruction. Given that recent research shows that less than 7 percent of the American public has taken the necessary steps to get prepared, the American Red Cross strongly believes that the most effective way to distribute these emergency preparedness products is through retail channels where Americans regularly shop. This widespread distribution of products is exactly what J&J is seeking to prevent.

It is a shame that the American Red Cross has to waste valuable resources that could and should be devoted to helping to save lives and helping those affected by disasters, in defending itself against an ill-conceived lawsuit instituted by J&J.

In 1905, Congress passed a criminal statue that protects the American Red Cross?s right to use the red cross emblem. It is astonishing that J&J is now attempting to use this criminal statute against the Red Cross.

Consumers can feel good not only about preparing their family for an emergency and improving their health and wellness, but also that their purchase of these products gives back to help the Red Cross fulfill its mission.

The money the Red Cross receives from the sale of these products to consumers is reinvested in its humanitarian programs and services. The lawsuit waged by J&J forces the Red Cross to expend significant funds in its defense. It is amazing that a corporation with $53.3 billion in annual revenue in FY ?06 would sue the Red Cross, a nonprofit that received only $2 million in revenues from these products in 2006.

Please check our website frequently for updates on this and other Red Cross programs and services.

We hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,
American Red Cross Public Inquiry / K

 

[galaxygoddess]

Dear Sheila:

Thank you for contacting the American Red Cross to share your concerns. Your feedback is very important to us. The Red Cross is outraged that J&J would try to restrict how the Red Cross uses its own emblem to achieve its health, safety, and disaster preparedness and response mission. The Red Cross will be aggressively defending its right to use the Red Cross emblem.

The American Red Cross has used the Red Cross emblem since its inception in 1881. J&J started using a red cross symbol as a trademark in 1887. Congress granted the American Red Cross the exclusive right to use the Red Cross emblem in 1905, and at the same time allowed third parties that had used a red cross symbol before 1905 to continue using a red cross symbol for limited purposes. These third-party users are called ?grandfathered users? and J&J is one of several grandfathered users. The American Red Cross has been offering first aid kits for over 100 years.

While J&J appears to think that the Red Cross products are only about making money, these products are really about preparing individuals and families for life?s emergencies and improving health and wellness.

It is amazing that J&J has asked the Court to require that the Red Cross surrender all of its inventory of preparedness products for destruction. Given that recent research shows that less than 7 percent of the American public has taken the necessary steps to get prepared, the American Red Cross strongly believes that the most effective way to distribute these emergency preparedness products is through retail channels where Americans regularly shop. This widespread distribution of products is exactly what J&J is seeking to prevent.

It is a shame that the American Red Cross has to waste valuable resources that could and should be devoted to helping to save lives and helping those affected by disasters, in defending itself against an ill-conceived lawsuit instituted by J&J.

In 1905, Congress passed a criminal statue that protects the American Red Cross?s right to use the red cross emblem. It is astonishing that J&J is now attempting to use this criminal statute against the Red Cross.

Consumers can feel good not only about preparing their family for an emergency and improving their health and wellness, but also that their purchase of these products gives back to help the Red Cross fulfill its mission.

The money the Red Cross receives from the sale of these products to consumers is reinvested in its humanitarian programs and services. The lawsuit waged by J&J forces the Red Cross to expend significant funds in its defense. It is amazing that a corporation with $53.3 billion in annual revenue in FY ?06 would sue the Red Cross, a nonprofit that received only $2 million in revenues from these products in 2006.

Please check our website frequently for updates on this and other Red Cross programs and services.

We hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,
American Red Cross Public Inquiry / K

Now, I just want to throw up.

 

[Just-Legal]

My father works for a drug company *raises flame sheild* they don't work the same way in the UK as they do in the US and no its not J&J. He said he's not surprised about this in the least, and is in fact wondering why it didn't happen sooner. Drug companies will use any angle to get at those they percieve as competition, including pretty much setting up price fixing "scandals" (as has recently happened in the UK but was kept fairly quiet - I'm looking at YOU APS Berk (Teva) and Kent).

In short, they're bastards.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Mmmm. Interesting! Gets stickier as you go down into it, doesn't it?

That's a fair point on licensing for subsidiary brands, especially if they're branching out further away from the "emergency preparedness" mission. Possibly J&J is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

They are, indeed, damned either way. Because I'll side with the Red Cross any day, and I'm sure most people will.