Comments on: You’re Doing What?!

By: shopping baskets

shopping baskets — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:43:08 +0000

your blog is excellent .
Thanks,

By: Ст 18 закона о защите прав потребителей

Ст 18 закона о защите прав потребителей — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:31:29 +0000

Замечательный рассказ, я узнал много нового, но хочется подробностей, тема как говориться не раскрыта до конца.

By: You Can’t Stop The Beat! | Internet Marketing Blog

You Can’t Stop The Beat! | Internet Marketing Blog — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:34:55 +0000

[...] the Red Cross over the use of the famous red cross logo. However,the JNJ BTW blog gave J&J the opportunity to tell the story their way. Agree or disagree with J&J over the use the logo . the point here [...]

By: BRANDSTRONG : Maven POV: The A-B-C and D's of Digipalooza

BRANDSTRONG : Maven POV: The A-B-C and D's of Digipalooza — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:00:41 +0000

[...] You’re Doing What? – Johnson & Johnson vs. Red Cross = Reputation building nightmare. (JNJ BTW) [...]

By: J&J Blogs, Sues Red Cross and Buys Maya’s Mom. Miss Marple, What Do These Clues Mean? Part 1

Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:06:59 +0000

[...] media headlines this summer. There are two parallel paths here; one path, a corporate blog and a corporate law suit. This will be Part [...]

By: Jonson & Jonson vs. American Red Cross | трънки и блогинки

Jonson & Jonson vs. American Red Cross | трънки и блогинки — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:48:09 +0000

[...] марка? Твърде лесно за скандал – не е толкова просто, обясняват от J&J. Интересен правен, но най-вече PR [...]

By: Scott Duffy

Scott Duffy — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:27:20 +0000

Here’s the link.

From http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/emblem-history
“On 26 October 1863, the first International Conference was convened. It included delegates from 14 governments.

In addition to adopting ten resolutions, which provided for the establishment of relief societies for wounded soldiers – the future Red Cross and, later, Red Crescent Societies – it also adopted the red cross on a white background as the uniform distinctive emblem.”

Does Oct 26, 1863 predate J&J’s use of the symbol? Yes – by 24 years! So I don’t think your case is as solid as you think it is.

By: Scott Duffy

Scott Duffy — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:19:34 +0000

All of J&J’s public statements on this case claim you started using the logo “before the American Red Cross was chartered”. This is intentionally misleading.

The Red Cross existed as an organization before it was formally chartered, and it’s use of the red cross symbol predates J&J’s registering it as a trademark.

The RIGHT thing to do would be to give the Red Cross the trademark, not trying desperately to hang on to it. It’s not even anything consumers relate to J&J… I bet only 5% of consumers associate the red cross with J&J while 95% associate it with the Red Cross.

Basically, J&J is greedy. And I will boycott purchasing any products of yours until this is settled in the Red Cross’ favor.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:56:50 +0000

Has JNJ used a red cross logo on anything recently? All the examples I’ve seen online this week confirm that my great grandmother probably bought a JNJ product with a red cross on it, but I’m 35 and I’ve never seen a JNJ product with red cross branding. Your argument seems to be that consumers will be confused if they see an American Red Cross logo on a product; however, as a consumer, the exact opposite would happen for me. If I saw a JNJ product with a red cross logo on it, I would wonder why you are stealing ARC’s logo.

By: Johnson & Johnson Sues the American Red Cross… at Animus Ex Machina

Johnson & Johnson Sues the American Red Cross… at Animus Ex Machina — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:45:40 +0000

[...] Over the use of the Red Cross. Adriana Lukas has a good commentary post about this public affairs fiasco. Of course, when you just read the title and not the articles themselves (or the press releases) the first thing that pops in to your head is: you’ve gotta be kidding me? But, if you take the time to read both posts, you’ll find out that the lawsuit itself, is not frivolous. [...]