http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/09/america/NA-GEN-US-Red-Cross-Lawsuit.php
Are they going to sue all the swiss made merchandize next ?
Yes they will if it is sold in the US. If they don’t, they lose their trademark.
Actually, the Swiss Army stuff is a white cross on a red background as is the Swiss flag. No infringement there.
The Red Cross, on the other hand, competes with J&J. From what I can tell, the two were hunky dorey until the Red Cross started licensing the symbol for a profit … at which point J&J had to make them stop or risk losing their exclusive right.
Exclusive rights are a bunch of BS anyway. J&J didn’t invent the ‘‘red cross’’ and therefore should not be able to stop anyone from licensing the symbol for a profit. I could see this if we were talking about another company using Mickey Mouse, but a red cross…maybe the templars should sue J&J. 
J&J has a signed agreement (with Clara Barton…in 1895) giving them exclusive use of a red cross as a trademark and otherwise for chemical, surgical, pharmaceutical goods of every description. My guess is that they were fine with the Red Cross using the red cross, but not so happy when the Red Cross began making licensing agreements with J&J competition to use the red cross.
You raise a different issue, i.e., whether J&J is entitled to the mark. That issue, for at least 100 years, has been undisputed by the Red Cross and apparently many others. Your point may have merit but that is not the point at issue.
Exactly! It is like someone shows up claiming the trademark for traffic signs, somethings just belong to the whole community…
Your point may have merit but that is not the point at issue.
That is usually the case. 
***Exclusive rights are a bunch of BS anyway. J&J didn’t invent the ‘‘red cross’’ and therefore should not be able to stop anyone from licensing the symbol for a profit. I could see this if we were talking about another company using Mickey Mouse, but a red cross…maybe the templars should sue J&J. ***
Exclusive rights in trademarks has nothing to do with inventing the mark. It has to do with the use of the mark in association with goods or services. Assuming J&J has been using a red cross for 100 years on certain products to identify them as sourced by J&J, then the Red Cross’ use of a similar mark may cause confusion as to whether it’s goods are associated with J&J. Trademark law is not as broad as patent law (which deals with inventions), and the legal monopoly is not as extensive. If J&J has trademark rights in the red cross for medical supplies, they would have a devil of a time preventing me from using a nearly identical mark on the packaging for my semiconductor chips. Why? They haven’t been using that mark in that industry to develop identity and brand awareness. Assuming no other facts, any court (at least in the US) would likely find that there is no likelihood of confusion, which is the standard for trademark infringement. On the other had, there might be a claim for trademark dilution, but that’s an entirely different theory of law, and is a lot higher standard than infringement.
I still think it is ridiculous; it’s just like Texas A&M having exclusive rights to ‘‘the 12th Man’’ or the NCAA not allowing other entities to use the phrase ‘‘March Madness.’’ Before long, no one will be able to speak or write or draw a picture without getting sued.
I still think it is ridiculous; it’s just like Texas A&M having exclusive rights to ‘‘the 12th Man’’ or the NCAA not allowing other entities to use the phrase ‘‘March Madness.’’
Well, if you really think about it, it’s not that ridiculous. Companies spend millions on brand awareness using marks and slogans. This translates into tens to hundreds of millions in revenue. Permitting unfettered use of those marks and slogans would permit other companies to unfairly compete by siphoning sales from the companies that spend the money on advertising and brand awareness.
Before long, no one will be able to speak or write or draw a picture without getting sued.
That’s a bit of an overstatement. What you mean is that no one will be able to use a picture/logo or particular phrase for certain commercial purposes. I’ll agree to that.
If I want to have an automobile blowout sale in March, I can call it March Madness and the NCAA can’t do a damn thing about it, legally. However, if I start selling T-shirts that say “March Madness” with a basketball logo on them, well… I may be in trouble. If I’m speaking or writing, I can certainly use the phrase “the 12th man” if I’m 1) talking about an actual person, or 2) if I’m referring to Texas A&M’s “12th Man” without paying any royalty to Texas A&M. But I can’t use the phrase to sell T-shirts and sports paraphernalia.
So I think your concern is a little on the paranoid side. It’s a common misconception that trademark law protects any and all uses of a mark. It doesn’t. In fact, the only marks I can think of that have protection that even approaches a near total monopoly are the word “Olympic” and the Olympic 5 ring logo, and those mark have special statutory protection apart from the general trademark laws.
Thanks for the info. I definately learned something today.
If I want to have an automobile blowout sale in March, I can call it March Madness and the NCAA can’t do a damn thing about it, legally.
**
Actually, they can sue even with a weak case and beat a small player into submission with just the threat of legal costs, can’t they?
This brought to mind slowman’s article on “The Trademark”. The WTC case against Iron Case and Iron Woman tea came to mind when I read your explanation.
http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/features/ironmark.html
“You raise a different issue, i.e., whether J&J is entitled to the mark. That issue, for at least 100 years, has been undisputed by the Red Cross and apparently many others. Your point may have merit but that is not the point at issue.”
From the article, it’s hard to see what IS the issue. In essence, the only argument the Red Cross president seemed to offer was that the Red Cross is the good guys and J&J, since they seek a profit, must be the bad guys. I shudder to think that such could be seen as a valid argument for trampling over property rights.
**Actually, they can sue even with a weak case and beat a small player into submission with just the threat of legal costs, can’t they? **
That’s why I said they can’t do anything to me legally. In practice, sure they could try the scorched earth tactic to beat me into submission, if they want to take the chance that I won’t fight it.