that there was "an existing trademark dispute" between J&J and the Red
14. During the past several years, on several occasions, J&J has tried to
convince the Red Cross to limit its use of the red cross emblem on
licensed products in retail stores. Only within the past three weeks has
it become apparent to the Red Cross that J&J was possibly doing more than
saber-rattling. Since that time, the Red Cross has been working
carefully, analyzing its legal position and weighing options.
Red Cross Disputes J&J's Claims in Lawsuit
15. J&J's first claim is for "Contractual and Equitable Estoppel." This
claim does not mention any breach of any contract, and does not mention at
all the Barton Agreement. It merely claims that the Red Cross made
certain historical statements that it "would not enter into such
commercial licenses" regarding the sale of certain Red Cross products that
J&J relied upon to its detriment.
16. J&J's second claim is for "Violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 706." J&J
alleges that the Red Cross and its licensing partners are somehow
violating this statute. What J&J's lawsuit fails to recognize is that this
criminal statute originally was passed by Congress as a shield to protect
the Red Cross from other companies that fraudulently infringe upon the
right of ARC to use the red cross emblem. At no time has any federal
agency, including the Department of Justice, ever claimed that the Red
Cross was in violation of the use of its red cross emblem that Congress
gave to it more than 102 years ago. Now J&J is attempting to use this
criminal statute as a sword against the Red Cross.
17. J&J's third and final claim is for a claim that does not even involve
the Red Cross. It is for a separate issue against one of the Red
|SOURCE American Red Cross|
Copyright©2007 PR Newswire.
All rights reserved