Johnson & Johnson the new Nestle?

[maisemor]

Johnson & Johnson sues Red Cross over Symbol

sorry but just one point. the swiss flag is different to the red cross flag.
apart from that - total c*s. they could have actually used this to their advantage pr wise and subsidised some red cross products which would have increased their image no end.

I am at a loss as to why some of these decisions get past the board stage.

Who the hell would sanction this? What a PR disaster. They deserve all the shite that will no doubt be coming their way.

I agree that a copyrighted symbol is that - but the red cross are only selling these products to fund their operations - not to make money for share-holders.

J&J could have sorted this issue before this stage i am sure.

Lets see what happens to their share price now.............

McDonald's can eff off with their claims to own 'Mc'. It's part of my name and the name of millions of bloody people throughout the world. My great-grandad had it long before some bloody yank decided to set up a so-called restaurant.

Tell us how you really feel, McEdam. Don't hold back now.

What on earth are they thinking? They must have known how bad this would look

Please see below, some paste from an email we where sent by the md of j and j in usa.
I think they are making some valid points to be honest
------------

1. We are not asking the American Red Cross to stop using the Red Cross symbol for its legitimate purposes.

2. We are asking that the American Red Cross stop licensing the Red Cross symbol to for-profit companies that use the trademark to compete with Johnson & Johnson products that have had exclusive rights to use the Red Cross symbol for over 100 years.

3. We continue our long-standing support for the primary mission of the American Red Cross in humanitarian relief.

4. We expect to contribute or direct monetary gains from the lawsuit itself to philanthropic purposes. Our focus has always been on the protection of our intellectual property.

5. If we did not pursue this action, we would jeopardize rights to one of Johnson & Johnson?s longest-lived, most trusted trademarks and establish a dangerous precedent.

Well maybe not so bad if they aren't seeking compensation

The email does not deny seeking financial compensation, far from it, merely says they 'expect' they might give the money away to good causes. If they feel like it, and there's an R in the month, I bet. Doesn't say what good causes, though. Big companies like that always seem to see the board directors' bonuses as a good cause.

That sounds reasonable to me, lily.

Why the constant paranoia about big companies?

How many of you paranoid avoiders shop in large supermarket chains?

I've never liked J&J. I am suspicious of very big companies. It makes sense to be.

Yes Desi, and why the paranoia about big charities? Utterly corrupt at senior management level?

But why?

Everything's utterly corrupt at senior management level. Even with small companies. Probably with the NHS.

But bigger companies have more to lose, surely?

They're so much less likely to lose it though des.

Because all too often very big companies act like bullies. They think they are above the law - certainly above treating the 'little people' fairly. Bhopal, anyone? Child slavery in India and Africa? BAA trying to ban members of the RSBP and Women's Institute from the M4?

E.g. McDonald's trying to steal the prefix for Scottish surnames because hey, selling cheap burgers is so much more important than actually respecting the fact that people have their own names, thanks very much.

The charitable sector is rife with bullying, IMO and IME.

I don't think you can compare J&J to Nestle - this is about a logo on some ointment and a bit of cash (or did I miss the bit where the Third World babies died?).

In many ways, I can see J&J's point - any company will protect its trademarks. Didn't Coca-Cola take Sainsbury's to court when they first started selling own-label cola because they'd used curly writing and white on red?

Oh yes, I've seen it first-hand, Hunker. Some horrifying stuff went on at the charity where I worked. Thank God the worst of it after I'd left.

(Although no charity has ever tried to steal my surname. Not that I'm hung up about it or anything.)

McEdam and HM, you need to enlighten me. I've worked in four charities now and have seen probably 50% useless managers, but DH has worked for several private companies and seems to have seen equally bad ones. How does the charity sector = bullying? and how do I avoid that in my management??? (sorry, that's probably a different thread really)

I think the issue is that you get bad directors and bad managers in both sectors, but charities come with a set of expectations of decency. I've worked for cut-throat corporates and you knew that they would rip you off as soon as look at you. I've worked for a fairly decent charity, relatively ethical, but some dodgy HR stuff going on. And then it got really bad after I left - they treated a friend of mine so very badly it makes me foam at the mouth (I wish she'd gone to the police, actually, but unfortunately she was too emotionally scarred to do it).

Thanks McEdam. The key seems to be "expectations of decency". Just because the work is non profit, doesn't mean the managers are going to be any better, sadly. Though I do wonder if, in HR terms, pay peanuts get monkeys. ???

What happened with your friend sounds horrific.

Peaches, much in the way of "I will fill in my expenses as I see fit and you will NOT question me" (while thumping hand on desk and leaning over in menacing fashion) - these were totally fictional expenses, this was a director who was already paid a fucking fortune given he used to swan into work late (because, by his own admission, he wanted to get the cheap fare into work), pretend to work from home but never produce any work, invite all his mates on paid-for nights out (masquerading as fundraising) and make sure he got top hotel room.

And worse from the other director - who did all the same things but while making damn sure her members of staff suffered. Oh, and made up hospital appointments so she could have the afternoon off. And a whole raft of other unpleasant, bullying things, which, taken individually wouldn't be too irritating, but added up were enough to cause a nervous breakdown.

And neither of them did a stroke of work if they could possibly help it and both were pretty much utterly incompetent whenever they did.

At least six members of staff left directly because of this woman and indirectly because of this man. The trustees weren't interested. Twunts.