3 ms·
IANAL, but if they don't actively protect their ownership they risk it legally becoming a generic symbol that anyone can use and which they have no control over
by jamestimmins 5y ago
IANAL, but if they don't actively protect their ownership they risk it legally becoming a generic symbol that anyone can use and which they have no control over. If that happens then it completely undermines its purpose and significance in disaster or humanitarian situations.
- schoen 5y agoIt's not the same legally as an ordinary trademark, so I don't think that's their exact motivation. I think the idea is that they want everyone to know about believe that the emblem is only used for Red Cross activities and therefore that it's bad, and even a war crime, to attack those displaying it in a conflict environment. If people have seen it coming up in other contexts, that intuition or association might be weakened.
- arthurcolle 5y agoThis argument makes the most sense to me, thank you