Johnson & Johnson Sues American Red Cross Over Classic Emblem
Health care product manufacturer Johnson & Johnson filed suit August 8 against the American Red Cross over use of the red cross emblem on licensed products like first aid kits, nail clippers and toothbrushes. Four licensing partners of the relief organization are also named in the suit. In the suit,...
August 10, 2007 at 10:04 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Health care product manufacturer Johnson & Johnson filed suit August 8 against the American Red Cross over use of the red cross emblem on licensed products like first aid kits, nail clippers and toothbrushes. Four licensing partners of the relief organization are also named in the suit.
In the suit, J. & J. demands the Red Cross stop using the emblem on products sold to the public and for the destruction of the Red Cross' inventory of all of the products in question. J. & J. is also asking for proceeds with interest from sales of the licensed products, punitive damages and attorney fees.
J. & J. charges it first used the red cross design and word trademarks in 1887, before the formation of the American Red Cross. According to the suit, a 1895 agreement with the Red Cross gave J. & J. exclusive rights to the emblem for use as a trademark commercially for “chemical, surgical and pharmaceutical goods.”
In 1900, a Congressional charter awarded the Red Cross right to use the emblem in connection with its humanitarian efforts. In 2004, the Red Cross began to license its name and emblem to be used on first aid and disaster-preparedness products.
According to the lawsuit, “Carrying out a commercial enterprise or business is not and never has been one of the purposes of the American Red Cross.” The Red Cross counters that all the profits it receives from these products are reinvested in humanitarian programs and services.
“For a multibillion dollar drug company to claim that the Red Cross violated a criminal statute that was created to protect the humanitarian mission of the Red Cross–simply so that J. & J. can make more money–is obscene,” said American Red Cross President and CEO Mark W. Everson in a statement. “… I hope that the courts and Congress will not allow Johnson & Johnson to bully the American Red Cross.”
In a statement from J. & J., the company expressed “great respect” for Red Cross relief work and noted it attempted to resolve the matter through “cooperation and discussion” and offered mediation “to no avail.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRepublican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
4 minute readSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
FTC Lauds Withdrawal of Proposed Indiana Hospitals Merger After Leaning on State Regulators
4 minute readHow Qualcomm’s General Counsel Is Championing Diversity in Innovation
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250