"Barton Agreement") that would have permitted J&J to continue to use the
red cross emblem if Congress gave the use of the emblem to the Red Cross
in a charter.
7. The Barton Agreement was effective only if Congress passed a specific
law that would have prohibited J&J from continuing to use a red cross
symbol. Congress did not pass the law, so the agreement never took
8. Thus, the Barton Agreement was effectively rendered null and void.
J&J admitted this fact in testimony before Congress in 1942 in hearings in
the House of Representatives on the "Protection of the Name and Emblem of
the Red Cross." 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 279-81 (1942).
9. It is noteworthy that although J&J makes reference to the Barton
Agreement in its lawsuit against the Red Cross, J&J did not quote the
limiting language in the complaint, nor did it include a copy of the
Barton Agreement with its other exhibits attached to the complaint. In
fact, there is no claim of ANY breach of the Barton Agreement by the Red
Cross in the lawsuit.
Dispute Over Emblem Based on Profit
10. The Red Cross has been selling first aid kits commercially in the
United States since 1903. Until now, J&J has never challenged this
activity. Thus, for over 100 years, J&J and the Red Cross enjoyed their
concurrent right to use the red cross emblem in commerce.
11. In fact, over the past century, J&J and the Red Cross have joined in
lawsuits against infringers of the right of the Red Cross and J&J to use
the red cross emblem.
12. In 2003, J&J began to complain to the Red Cross about licensing third
parties to sell Red Cross first aid kits in retail stores. Red Cross
tried to partner with J&J on preparedness and on this issue, but these
conversations never led to an agreement.'/>"/>
|SOURCE American Red Cross|
Copyright©2007 PR Newswire.
All rights reserved