Unbelievable, particularly coming from such an established organization such as Johnson&Johnson.

According to the J&J site :

“Through Our Credo, Johnson & Johnson is committed to improving the community through a variety of programs both in the United States and abroad.” and… “We believe our first responsibility is to the doctors, nurses and patients, to mothers and fathers and all others who use our products and services. In meeting their needs everything we do must be of high quality.”

Unfortunately the case is not that simple. As it stands, you have to protect your trademark, otherwise it weakens under the current US trademark law.

Also, I read somewhere (sorry, can’t find a legit reference now) that J&J didn’t just “sue them”. They sought third party arbitration which ARC promptly refused.

Another thing talking in favor of J&J is the infamous Tylenol case. Unless they’ve completely lost their grip since then, I don’t think they’d go on a bonanza just for the heck of it without considering the consequences carefully.

A sad thing imho is that while “American Red Cross has the right under a Congressional charter awarded in 1900 to use the red cross design in connection with its efforts to provide voluntary relief” (NYTimes), selling licensed products that compete head to head against J&J red cross branded products is quite as much a blunder from the side of the ARC.

The fact is that the Red Cross lives off donations (a large proportion of which comes from companies), so it’s both sad and dangerous that they often take an arrogant stand like this on things:

In the press release, Mark Everson, the Red Cross’ president, is quoted as saying, “For a multibillion-dollar drug company to claim that the Red Cross violated a criminal statute, . . . simply so that J&J can make more money, is obscene.” (link)

...and how Seth would have said it:

I think that’s a typo. My guess is that Mr. Everson meant to say, “Oops! J&J is a good corporate citizen, a significant donor to the Red Cross and the original and rightful owner of the trademark. We’ll unwind our deals as soon as we can and go back to focusing on what we do best.”

Just to clear things up: I deeply appreciate what the Red Cross is doing and have used them as a trusted vehicle to support catastrophe victims. However, with the current light of facts, I wouldn’t jump on conclusions that J&J is too much to blame in this case.

Without a doubt this is a controversial topic of discussion…what an excellent story for examining what it means to “do the right thing”. No simple cut and dry answer.

Yes, under previous leadership in the 80’s some might argue J&J did the right thing with Tylenol although many others here don’t agree and enumerate rather that J&J obscured the facts by manipulating perception… maybe this case is an encore?

The Oct. 8, 1982 Wall Street Journal said that the company was a fierce competitor and litigator and had a number of enemies.

Said the WSJ: “And although Tylenol has been known as an aggressive, even predatory marketer that frequently used litigation to stymie competitors, J&J plays down suggestions that industrial sabotage or an overzealous competitor is responsible for the poisonings.””

It also said “J&J has developed a reputation for sometimes riding roughshod over inventors and small entrepreneurial firms from which it often buys technology.”

Burke, following [another related] death, said, “Yes, indeed, I am,” when a reporter at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., asked him on Feb. 19, 1986, if he was sorry J&J did not stop making Tylenols in capsules after the Chicago murders.

Today, one thing to keep in mind is not just the legality of the matter but rather what, in this case, the plaintiff (J&J) is after and what beyond trademark it is looking to accomplish with a suit of this magnitude=$$$.