Judge Gives Red Cross Right to Use Logo on Products

A federal judge in New York has rejected an effort by Johnson & Johnson to prevent the American Red Cross from using the charity’s logo on retail products.

U.S. District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff, in a ruling this month, said the American Red Cross has the right to use its red-and-white logo on retail products that are sold to help raise money for its mission-related operations.

Johnson & Johnson sued the charity in August, charging that the Red Cross violated a long-held trademark by selling products like humidifiers, toothbrushes, and combs under its own brand.

The company said it has the exclusive right to use the Red Cross symbol on commercial products. In the lawsuit, Johnson & Johnson sought to have the American Red Cross destroy all of its licensed first-aid products, turn over the proceeds of past sales of such products, and pay damages and court costs.

Disaster Supplies

The Red Cross, like many large charities, works with private companies to sell retail products under its brand and receives royalty payments for the sale of those products. The organization has licensing agreements with companies that produce disaster radios, hand sanitizers, disposable gloves, nursing shoes, and other items that bear the Red Cross logo.

Johnson & Johnson, however, charged that the Red Cross violated the company’s trademark by using the logo on those items.

The Red Cross argued that it began using that emblem in 1881, six years before Johnson & Johnson started using it on commercial products.

“We have said from the beginning that Johnson & Johnson’s lawsuit is meritless, and we are gratified by Judge Rakoff’s ruling in our favor,” Mary S. Elcano, the Red Cross’s acting president, said in a statement. “We hope J&J will work with us to bring this dispute to a prompt end so we can focus on what’s important: delivering lifesaving Red Cross services to the American people.”

The Red Cross said that it still needed to work with the company to resolve several of the charges included in the lawsuit. None of those charges question the charity’s ability to use its logo on commercial products, it said.