Wounds Heal in Red Cross Dispute
After coming to its public relations senses, medical firm Johnson & Johnson has decided it wouldn't be wise to proceed with a lawsuit against the Red Cross charity over a trademark agreement made in 1895. The initial case was brought by the firm after the Red Cross began to sell safety kits to fundraise for its many disaster-relief campaigns.
After coming to its public relations senses, medical firm Johnson & Johnson has decided it wouldn’t be wise to proceed with a lawsuit against the Red Cross charity over a trademark agreement made in 1895. The initial case was brought by the firm after the Red Cross began to sell safety kits to fundraise for its many disaster-relief campaigns.
Your support matters…The BBC:
Medical firm Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and the American Red Cross have agreed to end their legal dispute over the charity’s use of the red cross symbol.
The deal avoids a trial and upholds the right of the American Red Cross to use the emblem for commercial purposes.
J&J had alleged that an agreement with the charity’s founder in 1895 gave it the exclusive use of the symbol as a trademark for drug products.
The charity had called the lawsuit “obscene”.
Independent journalism is under threat and overshadowed by heavily funded mainstream media.
You can help level the playing field. Become a member.
Your tax-deductible contribution keeps us digging beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that unearths what's really happening- without compromise.
Give today to support our courageous, independent journalists.
Ear to the Ground
The Wikileaks founder may be near the end of his long battle to avoid U.S. extradition.
In a case likely to affect others, the corporate giant is told to pay $572 million after state says it misstated drug's effects out of greed.
At issue is money approved by Congress for the Pentagon that was diverted during the national emergency. Two high-priority projects are halted.
A tale of justice delayed and denied, Bobby Joe Maxwell's case exposes a fatal flaw in our court system.
Matthew Charles, although he committed no new crime, is back behind bars, and his case is generating a widespread demand for his release.
Despite the rejection, lawyers for the WikiLeaks founder say they are encouraged by the judges' 4-1 split, which may indicate that the court will change its decision.
You need to be a supporter to comment.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.