For Those Wondering About Red Cross Trademark, etc...
Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:15 am
In all the bruhaha the past few days regarding all the red crosses changing to green crosses, I decided to do a quick search and see what I could find. First I went to the American Red Cross website and found this:
Then I found a couple of great in-depth articles, for which I will just give the links because they are so long.
The first one is The History, Usage and Restrictions of the Red Cross and is found at: http://www.nellis.af.mil/Redcross/emblem.htm
Edit: I've removed the second link because the rest of the website is not appropriate for younger viewers. I'll quote the entire article instead in a later post. Sorry...
PS: Some companies are allowed to use the emblem if their products were in existence before 1905, such as Johnson & Johnson. Happy reading!
Trademark Information
The Greek Red Cross emblem and the American Red Cross name are federally protected marks of The American National Red Cross (see United States Code, Title 18, Section 706).
Then I found a couple of great in-depth articles, for which I will just give the links because they are so long.
The first one is The History, Usage and Restrictions of the Red Cross and is found at: http://www.nellis.af.mil/Redcross/emblem.htm
Edit: I've removed the second link because the rest of the website is not appropriate for younger viewers. I'll quote the entire article instead in a later post. Sorry...
PS: Some companies are allowed to use the emblem if their products were in existence before 1905, such as Johnson & Johnson. Happy reading!
Last edited by SierraRaven on Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:19 am
so you're saying, the red and green cross are the same?
Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:21 am
No, that's not what I'm saying at all! I think you misread Greek Red Cross, the style of the emblem. It's not 'green red cross'!
Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:52 pm
The Red Cross is a protected emblem, sure, but it's also a universally-recognized symbol of the medical profession. While I wouldn't be surprised, I somehow doubt that Neopets would be forced to stop using the logo.
Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:19 pm
shapu wrote:The Red Cross is a protected emblem, sure, but it's also a universally-recognized symbol of the medical profession. While I wouldn't be surprised, I somehow doubt that Neopets would be forced to stop using the logo.
Now, Im all mixed up... You mean that Neopets shouldn' use the red cross logo? HuH? I don't really know abou tthe history of that logo thought
Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:41 pm
Technically and legally, nobody should use the Red Cross as a logo unless they're doing something that is in some way affiliated with the Red Cross/Red Crescent organizations.
Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:44 pm
shapu wrote:Technically and legally, nobody should use the Red Cross as a logo unless they're doing something that is in some way affiliated with the Red Cross/Red Crescent organizations.
Oh ok! So in some way, itMs like a copyright?
Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Registered Trademarks and copyrights are functionally equivalent, so yes. It's like a copyright.
Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:52 pm
Here is an interesting article I found last night:
Where have all the Red Crosses gone?
For most of us growing up with the symbol of a red cross brandished across everything from the local pharmacy to the ambulance flying down the street, to your very first nurse doll or plastic play-time medical kit, it may be a surprise to find that this symbol is not (nor was it ever!) legally used anywhere except for the exclusive use by the American and International Red Cross. Even more shocking is the fact that they decided (within the last year or so) to enforce this after almost one hundred years.
Every hospital, ambulance, pharmacy, kid's toy, nurse costume, sign... anything and everything that is not directly affiliated with or endorsed by the American Red Cross (and the International Red Cross) which use a red cross symbol, is being formally contacted by the legal department of the Red Cross to remove it immediately.
Obviously, we at MedicalToys.com, were completely unaware of such a legality. However, after receiving our letter from the Red Cross legal eagles, we immediately complied. It was very distressing; it seemed bizarre that the Red Cross would spend so much of the money they receive from donors for emergency assistance, on this endeavor. After all, it [the red cross symbol] has been in "misuse" in so many millions of ways without any such enforcement by the Red Cross for almost 100 years. But we came to the same conclusion that thousands of others receiving a similar letter did: they are too big and you will not win.
Thus, we dutifully "doctored" all of our photos, even photos from our suppliers and customers, which had a red cross of any size on them. A rather arduous task, since we really didn't know which pictures had them. We (like everyone else) were "red cross blind"; which is basically the reason why the Red Cross is so adamant. They want to resurrect the sanctity and purity of its original symbolism, as well as assure those wounded or in need of their help that it is truly them (the Red Cross). It's quite strange, though, that for one hundred years we didn't seem to have difficulty deciphering the Red Cross agency from little Joey's toy doctor kit or the neighborhood pharmacy.
There are new variations of a medical symbol being devised daily by the thousands of companies and manufacturers who were forced to replace the red cross symbol they once used freely on their products or services. It would make an interesting study to investigate the financial impact that this may have on the many large inventories of items with red crosses or the cost of eradicating corporate logos with red crosses or repainting buildings and vehicles with red crosses.
History and Uses of the Red Cross
We, of course, did further research on the Red Cross. On quite a few of the Red Cross websites we found some very good history and explanations of the use and misuse issues:
"Behind this symbol lies more than a century of humanitarian tradition. At a meeting in Switzerland in 1863, international delegates recommended that volunteer medical personnel of all countries working to improve the care of the wounded on battlefields wear an easily recognizable sign. To honor the Swiss origin of this initiative, the symbol of a red cross on a white background (the reverse of the Swiss flag) was adopted.
The symbol was later incorporated into the treaties known as the Geneva Conventions. Since almost every nation in the world has signed the conventions, almost every nation has incurred the responsibility to establish a Red Cross organization and to protect the emblem of the Greek red cross.
The United States became a signatory to the Geneva Conventions in 1882. For 18 years following U.S. ratification, Congress debated how to enact this country's treaty obligations. Of particular discussion was how to ensure that use of the emblem was consistent with the conventions and how to protect the emblem from commercial exploitation.
Among the heroes in that battle for the Red Cross was Clara Barton, who persistently lobbied the United States to recognize the Geneva Conventions and who founded the American Red Cross. Today few know that Barton was also one of the first women to work for the government in the only agency that then employed women -- the U.S. Patent Office. Beginning in the spring of 1854, Barton worked as a copyist in a basement office of the agency for eight years. By 1862, horrified by the miserable treatment of soldiers injured in the Civil War, Barton left her Patent Office position to minister to the sick and wounded.
After the war, Barton lobbied for U.S. ratification of the Geneva Conventions. While she and her supporters awaited congressional action, they also took steps to meet the conventions' obligations. In 1881, the American Association of the National Red Cross was organized, and in 1893 it was formally incorporated in the District of Columbia.
In 1897, Barton also filed a trademark application for the Greek red cross symbol for use on books, pamphlets, paper, and envelopes. Thirty-one days following her filing, Registration No. 30,428 was issued. This trademark registration was later abandoned following congressional enactment of a criminal statute to protect the emblem.
On June 6, 1900, the bill to charter the American National Red Cross was signed into law. Section 4, which ultimately was codified as 18 U.S.C. §706, protected the Greek red cross symbol by making it a misdemeanor for any person or association to use the Red Cross name or emblem without the organization's permission. Penalties included imprisonment not to exceed one year and a fine between $1 and $500, payable to the Red Cross organization. Heated debates took place over the idea of imposing punishment for the essentially innocent offense of wearing the insignia of a benevolent organization.
There had been seven trademark registrations for Greek red crosses by entities unrelated to the Red Cross at the time the American Red Cross was incorporated. The existence of these users was recognized in congressional discussion of the act. However, lawmakers took no action to prohibit the rights of these earlier users.
In 1905, when Congress was revising the Red Cross charter, the issue of pre-existing rights to use the emblem was again raised. Lawmakers reiterated Congress' intent that the prohibitions on use of the Red Cross name and emblem did not make unlawful the use of the Greek red cross by those with otherwise established rights. However, these sentiments were again not reflected in the Red Cross charter revision.
At the time of the 1905 revision, the number of trademark registrations with a Greek red cross had grown to 61, including several by Johnson & Johnson. Concerned over potential pre-emption, commercial users lobbied for codification of their existing trademark rights. In 1910, Congress formally established that lawful use of the Red Cross name and emblem that began prior to Jan. 5, 1905, could continue, but only if that use was "for the same purpose and for the same class of goods."
By 1942, the number of companies claiming rights existing prior to Jan. 5, 1905, had swollen to more than 200. Increasingly frustrated over the prominent advertising campaigns of the pre-1905 users and others, the Red Cross lobbied Congress to prohibit all commercial uses of the Red Cross name and emblem. In testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Hermann Hughes, secretary and general counsel of the Red Cross, testified that his office's workload since 1914 had included "over 3,500 separate abuse-of-emblem cases . . . on every conceivable type of merchandise, including doll hospitals, questionable medical clinics, and varied medicinals of doubtful efficacy, including pile cures and manhood tablets." But despite extensive hearings on the subject, no amendments were made to the Red Cross statute.
When the U.S. Criminal Code was recodified in 1948, the provision protecting the Red Cross emblem was moved from the Red Cross charter in Title 36 to Title 18. Today, criminal sanctions for misusing the Red Cross emblem, or any of the other insignias protected by federal statute, are a fine of not more than $250 or imprisonment of not more than six months.
Over the last 50 years, the number of pre-1905 users has dwindled significantly. Johnson & Johnson continues to market Red Cross brand cotton, first aid kits, and a variety of other consumer products. Nine West manufactures Red Cross shoes under license from the US Shoe Corp. Red Cross toothache medication is still available for canker sores. Some products sold in the Midwest include Red Cross canned vegetables, Red Cross salt, and Red Cross macaroni. Red Cross Nurse disinfectant, formerly distributed in the Northeast only, has begun to make its way across the country. And in a handful of states, there are Red Cross drug stores. Today, 21 pre-1905 users remain.
Misuses of the emblem continue to plague the Red Cross, but now they take a more modern form. Nurse dolls, toy ambulances, and play medical kits still frequently sport the emblem, but they have been joined by novelties, T-shirts, and items for medical professionals. While signs for medical establishments have been a mainstay of misuse, recent years have seen a growing number of walk-in emergency care clinics sporting the emblem. As the pet industry has burgeoned, the emblem has found its way onto pet first aid kits and guides. Misuses appear in movies, on television, and in computer software and games. Service companies, such as those for car repair or lawn maintenance, tout themselves as service "doctors" and incorporate medical symbols to promote themselves.
In addition, plus signs have become popular symbols in trademark applications by companies that wish to promote their products as new and improved or superior to those of their competitors. When these plus signs are thickened and colored red, they are indistinguishable from the Greek red cross. And, of course, the Internet is the newest arena for infringement. The Red Cross has been the target of a domain name pirate, and it receives many notifications about misuses appearing on various Web sites.
The Red Cross' approach to addressing misuse centers on educating others about the Geneva Conventions and the federal law providing protection of the emblem. In most cases, misusers voluntarily cease coloring their crosses or pluses red. Only infrequently is it necessary to resort to legal action.
Those contacted about misuse of the Red Cross emblem often cite the Lanham Act in defense of their use. They argue that there is no likelihood of confusion, that the Greek red cross is in the public domain, or that their use is permitted by other Lanham Act provisions. What they fail to understand is that 18 U.S.C. §706 takes precedence over the Lanham Act. Arguments regarding continuous use or incontestability do not apply unless the owner can establish use back to 1905. Distinctions as to the class of goods or services for which the mark is used are irrelevant.
The test to establish infringement under the criminal statute is whether the mark is "a Greek red cross on a white ground, or any sign or insignia colored in imitation thereof." There are no other tests of whether there is likelihood of confusion between the Red Cross' emblem and the potentially infringing mark. Due to the federal criminal statute and the United States' continuing obligations under the Geneva Conventions, the emblem cannot revert into the public domain, despite nearly a century of abuse.
Ultimately, permitting more widespread use of the emblem, thus undermining its instant identification with the humanitarian principles of the Red Cross, would not be in anybody's interest. The Greek red cross represents much more than a particular organization. It indicates to members of a devastated community that help has arrived. It provides hope in times of disaster, and, most important, it protects lives in times of war and armed conflict."
Where have all the Red Crosses gone?
For most of us growing up with the symbol of a red cross brandished across everything from the local pharmacy to the ambulance flying down the street, to your very first nurse doll or plastic play-time medical kit, it may be a surprise to find that this symbol is not (nor was it ever!) legally used anywhere except for the exclusive use by the American and International Red Cross. Even more shocking is the fact that they decided (within the last year or so) to enforce this after almost one hundred years.
Every hospital, ambulance, pharmacy, kid's toy, nurse costume, sign... anything and everything that is not directly affiliated with or endorsed by the American Red Cross (and the International Red Cross) which use a red cross symbol, is being formally contacted by the legal department of the Red Cross to remove it immediately.
Obviously, we at MedicalToys.com, were completely unaware of such a legality. However, after receiving our letter from the Red Cross legal eagles, we immediately complied. It was very distressing; it seemed bizarre that the Red Cross would spend so much of the money they receive from donors for emergency assistance, on this endeavor. After all, it [the red cross symbol] has been in "misuse" in so many millions of ways without any such enforcement by the Red Cross for almost 100 years. But we came to the same conclusion that thousands of others receiving a similar letter did: they are too big and you will not win.
Thus, we dutifully "doctored" all of our photos, even photos from our suppliers and customers, which had a red cross of any size on them. A rather arduous task, since we really didn't know which pictures had them. We (like everyone else) were "red cross blind"; which is basically the reason why the Red Cross is so adamant. They want to resurrect the sanctity and purity of its original symbolism, as well as assure those wounded or in need of their help that it is truly them (the Red Cross). It's quite strange, though, that for one hundred years we didn't seem to have difficulty deciphering the Red Cross agency from little Joey's toy doctor kit or the neighborhood pharmacy.
There are new variations of a medical symbol being devised daily by the thousands of companies and manufacturers who were forced to replace the red cross symbol they once used freely on their products or services. It would make an interesting study to investigate the financial impact that this may have on the many large inventories of items with red crosses or the cost of eradicating corporate logos with red crosses or repainting buildings and vehicles with red crosses.
History and Uses of the Red Cross
We, of course, did further research on the Red Cross. On quite a few of the Red Cross websites we found some very good history and explanations of the use and misuse issues:
"Behind this symbol lies more than a century of humanitarian tradition. At a meeting in Switzerland in 1863, international delegates recommended that volunteer medical personnel of all countries working to improve the care of the wounded on battlefields wear an easily recognizable sign. To honor the Swiss origin of this initiative, the symbol of a red cross on a white background (the reverse of the Swiss flag) was adopted.
The symbol was later incorporated into the treaties known as the Geneva Conventions. Since almost every nation in the world has signed the conventions, almost every nation has incurred the responsibility to establish a Red Cross organization and to protect the emblem of the Greek red cross.
The United States became a signatory to the Geneva Conventions in 1882. For 18 years following U.S. ratification, Congress debated how to enact this country's treaty obligations. Of particular discussion was how to ensure that use of the emblem was consistent with the conventions and how to protect the emblem from commercial exploitation.
Among the heroes in that battle for the Red Cross was Clara Barton, who persistently lobbied the United States to recognize the Geneva Conventions and who founded the American Red Cross. Today few know that Barton was also one of the first women to work for the government in the only agency that then employed women -- the U.S. Patent Office. Beginning in the spring of 1854, Barton worked as a copyist in a basement office of the agency for eight years. By 1862, horrified by the miserable treatment of soldiers injured in the Civil War, Barton left her Patent Office position to minister to the sick and wounded.
After the war, Barton lobbied for U.S. ratification of the Geneva Conventions. While she and her supporters awaited congressional action, they also took steps to meet the conventions' obligations. In 1881, the American Association of the National Red Cross was organized, and in 1893 it was formally incorporated in the District of Columbia.
In 1897, Barton also filed a trademark application for the Greek red cross symbol for use on books, pamphlets, paper, and envelopes. Thirty-one days following her filing, Registration No. 30,428 was issued. This trademark registration was later abandoned following congressional enactment of a criminal statute to protect the emblem.
On June 6, 1900, the bill to charter the American National Red Cross was signed into law. Section 4, which ultimately was codified as 18 U.S.C. §706, protected the Greek red cross symbol by making it a misdemeanor for any person or association to use the Red Cross name or emblem without the organization's permission. Penalties included imprisonment not to exceed one year and a fine between $1 and $500, payable to the Red Cross organization. Heated debates took place over the idea of imposing punishment for the essentially innocent offense of wearing the insignia of a benevolent organization.
There had been seven trademark registrations for Greek red crosses by entities unrelated to the Red Cross at the time the American Red Cross was incorporated. The existence of these users was recognized in congressional discussion of the act. However, lawmakers took no action to prohibit the rights of these earlier users.
In 1905, when Congress was revising the Red Cross charter, the issue of pre-existing rights to use the emblem was again raised. Lawmakers reiterated Congress' intent that the prohibitions on use of the Red Cross name and emblem did not make unlawful the use of the Greek red cross by those with otherwise established rights. However, these sentiments were again not reflected in the Red Cross charter revision.
At the time of the 1905 revision, the number of trademark registrations with a Greek red cross had grown to 61, including several by Johnson & Johnson. Concerned over potential pre-emption, commercial users lobbied for codification of their existing trademark rights. In 1910, Congress formally established that lawful use of the Red Cross name and emblem that began prior to Jan. 5, 1905, could continue, but only if that use was "for the same purpose and for the same class of goods."
By 1942, the number of companies claiming rights existing prior to Jan. 5, 1905, had swollen to more than 200. Increasingly frustrated over the prominent advertising campaigns of the pre-1905 users and others, the Red Cross lobbied Congress to prohibit all commercial uses of the Red Cross name and emblem. In testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Hermann Hughes, secretary and general counsel of the Red Cross, testified that his office's workload since 1914 had included "over 3,500 separate abuse-of-emblem cases . . . on every conceivable type of merchandise, including doll hospitals, questionable medical clinics, and varied medicinals of doubtful efficacy, including pile cures and manhood tablets." But despite extensive hearings on the subject, no amendments were made to the Red Cross statute.
When the U.S. Criminal Code was recodified in 1948, the provision protecting the Red Cross emblem was moved from the Red Cross charter in Title 36 to Title 18. Today, criminal sanctions for misusing the Red Cross emblem, or any of the other insignias protected by federal statute, are a fine of not more than $250 or imprisonment of not more than six months.
Over the last 50 years, the number of pre-1905 users has dwindled significantly. Johnson & Johnson continues to market Red Cross brand cotton, first aid kits, and a variety of other consumer products. Nine West manufactures Red Cross shoes under license from the US Shoe Corp. Red Cross toothache medication is still available for canker sores. Some products sold in the Midwest include Red Cross canned vegetables, Red Cross salt, and Red Cross macaroni. Red Cross Nurse disinfectant, formerly distributed in the Northeast only, has begun to make its way across the country. And in a handful of states, there are Red Cross drug stores. Today, 21 pre-1905 users remain.
Misuses of the emblem continue to plague the Red Cross, but now they take a more modern form. Nurse dolls, toy ambulances, and play medical kits still frequently sport the emblem, but they have been joined by novelties, T-shirts, and items for medical professionals. While signs for medical establishments have been a mainstay of misuse, recent years have seen a growing number of walk-in emergency care clinics sporting the emblem. As the pet industry has burgeoned, the emblem has found its way onto pet first aid kits and guides. Misuses appear in movies, on television, and in computer software and games. Service companies, such as those for car repair or lawn maintenance, tout themselves as service "doctors" and incorporate medical symbols to promote themselves.
In addition, plus signs have become popular symbols in trademark applications by companies that wish to promote their products as new and improved or superior to those of their competitors. When these plus signs are thickened and colored red, they are indistinguishable from the Greek red cross. And, of course, the Internet is the newest arena for infringement. The Red Cross has been the target of a domain name pirate, and it receives many notifications about misuses appearing on various Web sites.
The Red Cross' approach to addressing misuse centers on educating others about the Geneva Conventions and the federal law providing protection of the emblem. In most cases, misusers voluntarily cease coloring their crosses or pluses red. Only infrequently is it necessary to resort to legal action.
Those contacted about misuse of the Red Cross emblem often cite the Lanham Act in defense of their use. They argue that there is no likelihood of confusion, that the Greek red cross is in the public domain, or that their use is permitted by other Lanham Act provisions. What they fail to understand is that 18 U.S.C. §706 takes precedence over the Lanham Act. Arguments regarding continuous use or incontestability do not apply unless the owner can establish use back to 1905. Distinctions as to the class of goods or services for which the mark is used are irrelevant.
The test to establish infringement under the criminal statute is whether the mark is "a Greek red cross on a white ground, or any sign or insignia colored in imitation thereof." There are no other tests of whether there is likelihood of confusion between the Red Cross' emblem and the potentially infringing mark. Due to the federal criminal statute and the United States' continuing obligations under the Geneva Conventions, the emblem cannot revert into the public domain, despite nearly a century of abuse.
Ultimately, permitting more widespread use of the emblem, thus undermining its instant identification with the humanitarian principles of the Red Cross, would not be in anybody's interest. The Greek red cross represents much more than a particular organization. It indicates to members of a devastated community that help has arrived. It provides hope in times of disaster, and, most important, it protects lives in times of war and armed conflict."
Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:18 pm
Wow, my husband has an old Matchbox car from the 60's with a red cross on it--it's an ambulance. Now that the symbol can't be used anymore, all of those toys with red crosses on them are going to be quite valuable.
I kind of thought the Red Cross was behind this whole thing. Please remember, all of you who donate to worthy causes, that the money you donate to the Red Cross is being used to pay its attorneys to fight everyone who has a red cross on their product. What a waste of money that could be used to feed poor people, etc., etc.
I kind of thought the Red Cross was behind this whole thing. Please remember, all of you who donate to worthy causes, that the money you donate to the Red Cross is being used to pay its attorneys to fight everyone who has a red cross on their product. What a waste of money that could be used to feed poor people, etc., etc.
Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:45 am
Morningstar wrote:Wow, my husband has an old Matchbox car from the 60's with a red cross on it--it's an ambulance. Now that the symbol can't be used anymore, all of those toys with red crosses on them are going to be quite valuable.
I kind of thought the Red Cross was behind this whole thing. Please remember, all of you who donate to worthy causes, that the money you donate to the Red Cross is being used to pay its attorneys to fight everyone who has a red cross on their product. What a waste of money that could be used to feed poor people, etc., etc.
Agreed.I don't think I will do any donating to their cause anymore.Now that I've seen all this.
Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:13 am
I won't be donating to them anymore either. In fact, I think my website has a link to them that I will be removing now.
Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:41 am
This entire issue is foolish. To think that even more could be done for people who have suffered through horrendous events like floods, earthquakes, fires, etc. This just saddens me. The money that is being used to pay these lawyers and clerks and everyone else involved in processing these actions could be given to towns and counties where disasters have occured, to rebuild. Donations could be given to hospitals and medical care facilities to improve their level of care. I doubt this is what Clara Barton would have wanted. The focus has been lost. Or has the Red Cross become so wealthy that they can afford these illogical measures and still help everyone? -.-
Btw, I did a book report about Clara Barton when I was in high school. I still have the book. It's one of those old books with yellow pages that you have read very delicately. It was a present from my uncle, as are many of my old books. Clara Barton was a wonderful woman. I think it would sadden her that so much money was being taken away from not only the Red Cross, but all the medical facilities who have to changes their images, that could have been used to help people.
Btw, I did a book report about Clara Barton when I was in high school. I still have the book. It's one of those old books with yellow pages that you have read very delicately. It was a present from my uncle, as are many of my old books. Clara Barton was a wonderful woman. I think it would sadden her that so much money was being taken away from not only the Red Cross, but all the medical facilities who have to changes their images, that could have been used to help people.
Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:03 am
I also always thought of the red cross as a universal symbol of health, sort of like the skull and crossbones is for danger. It's a shame it can't be used because of legalities..
Fri Jul 23, 2004 1:42 pm
I don't so much mind that the Red Cross is attempting to protect their copyright - I just mind that they're doing it NOW. No offense, folks, but you had 100 years to get your duffs in gear, and you didn't. And these days, the Red Cross needs every dollar it can get.
Sometimes, there are battles that you can win, but you shouldn't.
Sometimes, there are battles that you can win, but you shouldn't.