Seeing Red Crosses before ones eyes....

From the spluttering over morning coffee department:

One of the interesting trends in the blogosphere in the last year or so is the increasing usage of blogging by PR people to "share their sponsor's messages" with us. Now, there have been some glorious c*ck-ups like the Wal-Mart one, and the Acer Ferrari etc, but the Red Cross one now brewing is truly jaw dropping.

Here is the BBC on the actual event:

Medical firm Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is suing the American Red Cross, alleging the charity has misused the famous red cross symbol for commercial purposes. J&J said a deal with the charity's founder in 1895 gave it the "exclusive use" of the symbol as a trademark for drug, chemical and surgical products.

It said American Red Cross had violated this agreement by licensing the symbol to other firms to sell certain goods.

The charity described the lawsuit as "obscene".

It said many of the products at issue were health and safety kits and that profits from their sale had been used to support disaster-relief campaigns.

The lawsuit asks for sales of disputed products - also including medical gloves, nail clippers, combs and toothbrushes - to be stopped and unsold items to be handed over to J&J.

The firm is also seeking damages equivalent to the value of such goods sold in supermarkets such as Wal-Mart and Target.

"After more than a century of strong co-operation in the use of the Red Cross trademark... we were very disappointed to find that the American Red Cross started a campaign to license the trademark to several businesses for commercial purposes," the firm said in a statement.

J&J, best known for its Band-Aid bandages and baby products, first used the symbol as a trademark in 1887, the same year it was incorporated as a business.

American Red Cross was founded in 1881 but did not receive a charter from the US Congress until 1900.

From a new media strategy point of view, apart from the "What were they thinking" aspect, what's very interesting about this particular case from a Social Media perspective is the use by J&J of in-corporate blogging as a PR play to explain (humanise?) their position. Some well known bloggers have also jumped onto J&J's side (brave man) but it would also seem there is some ex-corporate blogging from people in sympathy of J&J's position (and to be fair, the disclosures of interest are in full).

Two years ago this sort of open communication would have been unthinkable, and corporate blogging is a great step forward - but is this a step too far? Is this pointing towards the pattern going forward when Corporates do Unpleasant Things in future - a "Mr Nice Guy" blog from within, plus orchestrated support from without? In which case, what is the counter to be?

(As a partial answer to that, the conversation on Google Blog and Technorati is rather informative...)

And this also twists in another way - the case is essentially based on the ability of J&J to trademark the international symbol of medical assistance in 1887 (awhile after the Red Cross was set up internationally in 1864). The American Red Cross was founded in 1881, but was only chartered in 1900, so between 1881 and 1900 its symbol would have been......errrm...a Red Cross perhaps? The root cause here (imho) is laxness in what can be trademarked in the US despite "prior art", so maybe this will be also an unintended watershed for tightening up on that arena as well if it goes to law? After all, there have been some encouraging moves on patent trolls recently - this may be one of those "be careful what you wish for" moments.....

(Update) For the record:

Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 6 July 1906.

Art. 27. The signatory powers whose legislation may not now be adequate engage to take or recommend to their legislatures such measures as may be necessary to prevent the use, by private persons or by societies other than those upon which this convention confers the right thereto, of the emblem or name of the Red Cross or Geneva Cross, particularly for commercial purposes by means of trade-marks or commercial labels. *The prohibition of the use of the emblem or name in question shall take effect from the time set in each act of legislation, and at the latest five years after this convention goes into effect. After such going into effect, it shall be unlawful to use a trade-mark or commercial label contrary to such prohibition*.

Full text here:...but you get the gist.

Postscript - read this thoughtful post on Adriana Lukas's blog - it would appear she taught J&J how to blog. Next lesson - what even blogging cannot save you from

Post Postscript - a patent lawyer's view - seems to confirm my suspicion that J&J may be on dodgier ground than it thinks.