Johnson & Johnson Loses Major Trademark Lawsuit 176
Dekortage writes "As previously discussed here, the health-products giant Johnson & Johnson sued the American Red Cross over use of the ubiquitous 'red cross' logo. J&J has now lost. The presiding judge said Johnson & Johnson's claim against the organization was doubtful because the manufacturer entered into a brand-sharing promotional agreement with the American Red Cross in 1986 — not to mention that the two organizations agreed to share the logo way back in 1895. Sounds like J&J may need to crack open some Tylenol and Band-Aids."
Re:Brand recognition (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:When you're hiring lawyers... (Score:3, Interesting)
The Red Cross doesn't have a perfect image, but bullying them is about as good for public opinion as bullying the Girl Scouts.
If Johnson & Johnson would have won this lawsuit, Congress almost certainly would have unamimously passed a law giving the Red Cross the right to the red cross logo.
Re:Unless you use our likeness... we support you. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:When you're hiring lawyers... (Score:2, Interesting)
They could lose the red cross trademark from their products altogether and I don't think I'd notice.
Emperors (Score:2, Interesting)
The more mud that is slung, the harder it is to see who is really dirty!
Re:it sure is a religious symbol (Score:3, Interesting)
We're not talking about groups like Scientologists here, we're talking about groups whose symbols are people who gave up or eshewed lives of gluttony and lived to help those around them. Whether or not leaders of these groups today are 100% representations of this mission is moot; they're just people, not the religions themselves.
Re:The Red Cross caused this problem (Score:4, Interesting)
<sarcasm>Don't know why. It's not like we obey any other parts of the Geneva Conventions these days (Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, et al). Why should this part be any different?</sarcasm>
Re:When you're hiring lawyers... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yea, because nobody would go after the Girl Scouts [harvard.edu].