5 ms·

> Under the Charter Act that was adopted in 1900 under the Geneva Convention (and later amended in 1905 and again in 1910)3, the American Red Cross has the excl

> Under the Charter Act that was adopted in 1900 under the Geneva Convention (and later amended in 1905 and again in 1910)3, the American Red Cross has the exclusive right to use a red Greek cross4 on a white field, with the only exception being that any user of such an emblem prior to 1905 would continue to have the right to use the emblem. Registrations owned by Johnson & Johnson for red Greek crosses date from 1906 and claim first use dates of 1898, and thus its right to use those marks were grandfathered based on the American Red Cross Charter Act. J&J continues using similar trademarks today... https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2012/04/one-cross--two-cross--red-cross--blue-cross-when__ https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2012/04/one-cr... In my unprofessional opinion, the red cross should go the way of "tissue", "google", "coke", etc. It's too common, hasn't been enforced. You lose the exclusive right to it.

PeterCorless 5y ago
The problem is that it's not just governed by national trademark, but by international treaty.
quickthrower2 5y ago
Hold on … I surely can’t go and start a drinks company and call my drink coke? Same with a search engine and Google?
- trollman5000 5y ago
  You should call it Red Cross Cola and just mix coke with rat poison.
- gpm 5y ago
  No, but it's a closer call than you might think, and (the general idea) has been litigated relatively recently: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/incontestable/google-survives-attempted-genericide.html https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/incontestable/goo... Google has also been taking defensive actions to prevent this from happening for all of recent history: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3006486.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3006486.stm
jp57 5y ago
> In my unprofessional opinion, the red cross should go the way of "tissue", "google", "coke", etc. It's too common, hasn't been enforced. You lose the exclusive right to it. Was "tissue" ever a trademark? Did you mean "Kleenex"? FWIW, "Kleenex", "Coke", and "Google", all still have their protected status. "Aspirin" was once a trademark (of Bayer?), but is no longer.
- yellow_lead 5y ago
  Yeah, I meant Kleenex. There are more examples here. Some of these still hold protected status as you mentioned. https://www.businessinsider.com/google-taser-xerox-brand-names-generic-words-2018-5#dumpster-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-taser-xerox-brand-nam...
sandworm101 5y ago
>> It's too common, hasn't been enforced. You lose the exclusive right to it This isn't some bit of copyright law. This is an international treaty that has vested the right to enforce this thing with a specific group. Misuse isn't going to result in in a DMCA takedown. Misuse of the red cross is an international crime, a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Don't like it? Elect people and have them withdraw your country from the Geneva Conventions. I doubt any party anywhere would ever adopt such a platform.
- yellow_lead 5y ago
  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the spirit of the rule is to protect things like hopsital ships, medics, etc. Saying its use in video games "distorts its meaning and its protective value..." is a bit much, especially for a creative work.
  - jldugger 5y ago
    > but the spirit of the rule is to protect things like hopsital ships, medics, etc. Specifically medical organizations that commit to treating _all sides of a conflict_.
    - sandworm101 5y ago
      And, importantly, those platforms with the symbol are not allowed to be armed, or even armored. A vehicle with that symbol must have absolutely no other use than medical. Even something like bulletproof glass on an ambulance might make it useful as a troop carrier. A non-armored ambulance can only ever be an ambulance.
      - mcguire 5y ago
        Interestingly, not necessarily true. (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul) "Rule 25. Medical personnel exclusively assigned to medical duties must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. "As explained below, the equipment of medical personnel with small arms to defend themselves or their patients and the use of such arms for this purpose do not lead to loss of protection. Furthermore, in analogous application of the similar rule applying to medical units, it is not to be considered a hostile act if medical personnel are escorted by military personnel or such personnel are present or if the medical personnel are in possession of small arms and ammunition taken from their patients and not yet handed over to the proper service. "Rule 29. Medical transports assigned exclusively to medical transportation must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy." Not sure about armor, although the general statement seems to be they would only lose their protected status if they commit specific actions.
johncolanduoni 5y ago
I feel like putting more burden on the red cross to police their “trademark” instead of their primary mission is a massive waste considering what that mission is. And the symbol is inherently common because the main place the average person sees it (on ambulances and hospitals) is actually an intended and authorized use of the symbol per the Geneva convention.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
theodric 5y ago
I find this Swiss military ambulance hilarious: https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/mid20th-century-swiss-army-ambulance-picture-id458674687?s=612x612 https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/mid20th-century-swiss-a...
- mcguire 5y ago
  What's hilarious about it?

PeterCorless 5y ago

The problem is that it's not just governed by national trademark, but by international treaty.

quickthrower2 5y ago

Hold on … I surely can’t go and start a drinks company and call my drink coke? Same with a search engine and Google?

trollman5000 5y ago
You should call it Red Cross Cola and just mix coke with rat poison.
gpm 5y ago
No, but it's a closer call than you might think, and (the general idea) has been litigated relatively recently: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/incontestable/google-survives-attempted-genericide.html https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/incontestable/goo... Google has also been taking defensive actions to prevent this from happening for all of recent history: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3006486.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3006486.stm

jp57 5y ago

> In my unprofessional opinion, the red cross should go the way of "tissue", "google", "coke", etc. It's too common, hasn't been enforced. You lose the exclusive right to it. Was "tissue" ever a trademark? Did you mean "Kleenex"? FWIW, "Kleenex", "Coke", and "Google", all still have their protected status. "Aspirin" was once a trademark (of Bayer?), but is no longer.

yellow_lead 5y ago
Yeah, I meant Kleenex. There are more examples here. Some of these still hold protected status as you mentioned. https://www.businessinsider.com/google-taser-xerox-brand-names-generic-words-2018-5#dumpster-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-taser-xerox-brand-nam...

sandworm101 5y ago

>> It's too common, hasn't been enforced. You lose the exclusive right to it This isn't some bit of copyright law. This is an international treaty that has vested the right to enforce this thing with a specific group. Misuse isn't going to result in in a DMCA takedown. Misuse of the red cross is an international crime, a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Don't like it? Elect people and have them withdraw your country from the Geneva Conventions. I doubt any party anywhere would ever adopt such a platform.

yellow_lead 5y ago
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the spirit of the rule is to protect things like hopsital ships, medics, etc. Saying its use in video games "distorts its meaning and its protective value..." is a bit much, especially for a creative work.
- jldugger 5y ago
  > but the spirit of the rule is to protect things like hopsital ships, medics, etc. Specifically medical organizations that commit to treating _all sides of a conflict_.
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    And, importantly, those platforms with the symbol are not allowed to be armed, or even armored. A vehicle with that symbol must have absolutely no other use than medical. Even something like bulletproof glass on an ambulance might make it useful as a troop carrier. A non-armored ambulance can only ever be an ambulance.
    - mcguire 5y ago
      Interestingly, not necessarily true. (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul) "Rule 25. Medical personnel exclusively assigned to medical duties must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. "As explained below, the equipment of medical personnel with small arms to defend themselves or their patients and the use of such arms for this purpose do not lead to loss of protection. Furthermore, in analogous application of the similar rule applying to medical units, it is not to be considered a hostile act if medical personnel are escorted by military personnel or such personnel are present or if the medical personnel are in possession of small arms and ammunition taken from their patients and not yet handed over to the proper service. "Rule 29. Medical transports assigned exclusively to medical transportation must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy." Not sure about armor, although the general statement seems to be they would only lose their protected status if they commit specific actions.

johncolanduoni 5y ago

I feel like putting more burden on the red cross to police their “trademark” instead of their primary mission is a massive waste considering what that mission is. And the symbol is inherently common because the main place the average person sees it (on ambulances and hospitals) is actually an intended and authorized use of the symbol per the Geneva convention.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

theodric 5y ago

I find this Swiss military ambulance hilarious: https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/mid20th-century-swiss-army-ambulance-picture-id458674687?s=612x612 https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/mid20th-century-swiss-a...

mcguire 5y ago
What's hilarious about it?