An Ethical Insight

This report focuses on the ethical components of the recent civil action suit filed

by Johnson amp Johnson against the American Red Cross The civil action states

that the Red Cross symbol is trademarked to Johnson amp Johnson

pharmaceutical products and the American Red Cross cannot use it on their

profit-based products line

The reason for this civil action suit is unethical as the American Red Cross and

Johnson amp Johnson could have prevented it from reaching court The American

Red Cross should have also protected its emblem in the a hundred years of use

by Johnson amp Johnson One of the two organizations is guilty of fraud as they

each legally claim the emblem The same goes for the case of copyright

infringement as both parties claims the other of doing so Both parties also lack

proper decision-making framework that is efficient as the issue has escalated to

a public civil action suit It is hard to ethically assign ranks of importance both of

the organizations as they are both fundamentally different It is also highly

unethical for Johnson amp Johnson to challenge the International Humanitarian

Law all these years and now attempt to legally violate it It was also unethical

for the American Red Cross to not defend the International Humanitarian Law

beforehand as it is the very constitution on which it is formed

In view of this issue the following steps are recommended the American Red

Cross should take more initiative to protect and uphold the International

Humanitarian Law Johnson amp Johnson should research on a new symbol to

represent its pharmaceutical products The Congress of America and the

American Legal system should review any contradicting overlapping or

unresolved issue in the copyright division and take the necessary course of

action and The consumers of the United States of America whom are also

American Red Cross members should take a legal stand in favor of the

organization that they perceive correct in this issue to force an ldquoout of courtrdquo

resolution

THENIVAALAVEN VIMAL (2007010041)

JO

HN

SO

N amp

JO

HN

SO

N V

S A

ME

RIC

AN

RE

D C

RO

SS

An

Eth

ica

l Insig

ht

Johnson amp Johnson vs American Red Cross An Ethical Insight 2008

NUMBER HEADING PAGE

10 INTRODUCTION 1

20 DISCUSSION OF ETHICAL ISSUES 3

21 THE CAUSE OF THE CIVIL SUIT 3

22 FRAUD 3

23 DECISION MAKING FRAMEWORK 3

24 COPYRIGHT VIOLATION 4

25 THE ISSUE OF PLACING THE IMPORTANCE

NOBILITY OR NUMEROUS PROFIT-BASED

STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS

4

26 THE BREACH OF THE INTERNATIONAL

HUMANITARIAN LAW

5

30 CONCLUSION 7

40 RECOMMENDATIONS 9


10 INTRODUCTION

This report delves into the ethical issues regarding to the recent Johnson amp

Johnson Civil Complaint against American Red Cross and Commercial

Licensees This takes into account the International Humanitarian Law

provisions the Congress of Americarsquos decision in the past the objectives of

a profit-based company in such an action and such is the ethical analysis

Johnson amp Johnson is a well-known pharmaceutical company in the United

States of America that has become a household name Due to their success

in the United States the company has developed into an international

brand however its headquarters and base of operations remains in New

Jersey United States of America Their range of products includes

medicines clinical as well as surgical equipment etc (Johnson 2007)

The American Red Cross is a branch of the International Federation of Red

Cross Red Crescent and Red Crystal formed in the United States of

America by Clara Barton (Cross 2007) The American Red Cross is formed

in accordance to the 12 objectives outlined (refer to Appendix 3) in the

International Humanitarian Law Recently the American Red Cross started

to introduce health products using the Red Cross symbol

The use of this symbol sparked outcry by Johnson amp Johnson as the

company had been using the same symbol as their registered trademark

However as the name suggests the American Red Cross defends its use

The Johnson amp Johnson civil suit states that this legal action was taken on

basis of numerous failed cooperation mediation and discussion Currently

both the parties have issued public statements (Appendixes 1 and 2) and

have taken follow-up legal action Thus the case currently is in pending for

its legal proceedings in court

This report examines on what were the professional and business ethics

aspects in this scenario in terms of what caused this dispute how it could

have been prevented and how it could have been handled The recognizable

ethical issues in this case are copyright violation misuse of given rights the


more ldquonoble and justifiable causerdquo breach of predominant international laws

and the breach of trust

This report relies on the official statements issued by the relevant parties

the authorrsquos knowledge in business and professional ethics and the authorrsquos

certified knowledge in the International Humanitarian Law This report also

uses the American Psychological Associationrsquos reference system readily

installed in Microsoft Office 2007


20 DISCUSSION OF ETHICAL ISSUES

21 The Cause of the Civil Suit

The cause of this civil suit is the need to preserve both the organizationrsquos

trademarks but the continual egoistic use of the Red Cross symbol by both the

organization resulted in a legal suit If Johnson amp Johnson were particular of

keeping the commercial use of the Red Cross emblem Johnson amp Johnson

should have applied for a proper legal right through the Congress to do so The

American Red Cross should have also had made a strong stand to say that the

American Red Cross has all the rights to retract their indigenous emblem away

form Johnson amp Johnson (as the symbol is preserved so in the International

Humanitarian Law) (Malaysia NA)

22 Fraud

Both the public statements claim that each respective party has a legal stand

whereby they had used the Red Cross symbol longer with Congressrsquos

permission As both of the party cannot be right one of the organizations is

guilty of attempting fraud by issuing fake statements and legal provisions that in

turn causes and illicit advantage in the legal proceedings This definite ethical

and legal breach is unacceptable in terms of lying and undermining the legal

system

23 Decision Making Framework

The Johnson amp Johnson public statement states that attempts to discuss

mediate and cooperation were offered to American Red Cross but it was to no

avail Logically both organizations should have kept their main objectives in

view to make a decision The business centered Johnson amp Johnson

organization should have opted an out of court decision as a public civil suit

costs more could possibly cause irreversible damage on the organizationrsquos

reputation (economic step of social responsibility) The humanitarian-cause


(philanthropic) lead American Red Cross should have prevented any possible

complications such as this issue legal proceedings as they cause unwanted

trouble to the American Red Crossrsquos work Improper or poor decision making

protocol and framework escalated this issue that could have been solved in the

boardroom not in the courtroom A good corporate decision making framework

on behalf of both the organizations could have spurred the push towards a

decision that could have benefitted both

24 Copyright Violation

The American Red Cross has gazette the Red Cross Red Crescent and Red

Crystal at the international field and the United States of America has signed

the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols that support this (Malaysia

NA) (referable to Appendix 3) Johnson amp Johnson is said to have

ldquograndfathered rights from the Congressrdquo to use the emblem (Johnson 2007)

(referable to Appendixes 1 and 2) It is can be concluded that only one

organization has legitimate claim and copyrights to use the emblem in question

The other party is guilty of infringing the given limit of the copyrights that was

allocated to them In the case of Johnson amp Johnson if they are found guilty

then they have infringed the copyright far beyond the given rights and their

attempts to null-void the usage of the symbol by Red Cross shows continued

unethical attempt to infringe the copyright further In the case whereby the

American Red Cross is found guilty they infringed their copyright when they

attempted to use the symbol for financial gains beyond that of which the

allocation given by the Congressional charter (this outcome is based on the

assumption that Johnson amp Johnsonrsquos claim is valid)

25 The Issue of Placing the Importance Nobility or Numerous Profit-Based

Stakeholder Concerns

To determine the ldquowinnerrdquo of this civil rights suit the legal system will have to

consider which one of the organization deserves the ldquogreater importancerdquo in

other words which organizationrsquos objective deserves the higher priority


Johnson amp Johnson is an international company that has numerous stakeholder

and shareholders that deserve to win this claim since a loss in this lawsuit can

spell an expensive compensation that will affect a large portion of the

organization not to mention the costs to recall and rebrand their whole

production lines in the United States (at press time Johnson amp Johnson

products available here in Malaysia do not support the Red Cross symbol (15

March 2008)) The American Red Cross is a humanitarian based organization

that serves to help American prepare prevent and respond to disasters and

emergencies (Cross 2007) (referable to Appendix 2) at a non-profit level in

other words the efforts made to help humanity in the United States of American

without regarding to profit however they must avoid bankruptcy (Malaysia NA)

Thus the dilemma is as follows which is the greater cause (teleological) ndash

financial benefit for possibly millions of people (financial utilitarianism) or the

humanitarian benefit for all of America (humanitarian utilitarianism)

26 The breach of the International Humanitarian Law

The International Humanitarian Law is the basis strength and pride of the

International Federation of Red Cross Red Crescent and Red Cross along with

the International Committee of Red Cross a component of it is Article 38 of

Geneva Convention that recognizes the Red Cross and Red Crescent symbol

belonging to the organizationsrsquo humanitarian cause (the Red Crystal emblem

was recognized in the third Additional Protocol in December of 2006) (Malaysia

NA) The United States of America is a country heavily involved in war and its

military industry is a key industry (based on numerous documentations seen in

Discovery channel from the year 2005 to present) The International

Humanitarian Law is recognized there In relation to the current cause it is

illegal for Johnson amp Johnson to attempt to use to symbol as the public

statement (Appendix 1) clearly states that Johnson amp Johnson has been using

the symbol for a hundred years (since 1887) but the International Humanitarian

Law has been in function for 145 years (1863) considering that the United

States of America signed the first Geneva Convention Negligence on the

American Red Crossrsquos part also puts the organization in the guilty seat as it

neglected upholding the International Humanitarian Law when the idea of

Johnson amp Johnson first adopting it was conceived This is a serious issue in the


International Federation of Red Cross Red Crescent and Red Crystal as most

of the regional organizations neglect the protection of their respective emblems

form abuse and misuse and ethically the American Red Cross should have

stopped such actions from the very beginning (perfect examples would be the

American Red Cross and Malaysia Red Crescent) This unethical act of

knowingly violating the International Law legal allocation by the Congress to do

so and the recent dispute of the issue long after the misdeed has been done are

unacceptable in the international level


30 Conclusion

This civil suit is fraught with corporate and humanitarian objectives and it is a

matter to be declared legally right or wrong in Civil Court of Justice However

this issue has several unethical acts that are outlined above by the author

according to the authorrsquos present knowledge in the field of Business and

Professional Ethics This civil suit could have been avoided by using proper

early-level intervention proper organizational decision-making framework

effective negotiations and ethical as well as legal values

The American Red Cross (as the United States of Americarsquos representative of

the International Federation of Red Cross Red Crescent and Red Crystal) has

been unethically lenient in allowing the use of its conserved and protected

symbol by a profit-based organization without contesting it in approximately a

hundred years ago It has also been unethically negligent of its legal status on

using the Red Cross symbol for profit gain (assuming the Johnson amp Johnson

claim s true) and its need to reinstate the Red Cross symbol as the sole property

of the American Red Cross (Malaysia NA) It is also guilty of causing failure to

the attempts of discussion mediation and cooperation according to Johnson amp

Johnson public statement

Johnson amp Johnson is ethically wrong to attempt to claim the Red Cross

emblem as it is undisputable that it belongs to the International Committee of

Red Cross Red Crescent and Red Crystal considering that the United States of

America and all of the other country Johnson amp Johnson operate in has signed

the International Humanitarian Law (Cross 2007) It is also guilty of delaying the

clearing the legal rights and limits of that right for using the Red Cross emblem

for almost a hundred years through obvious neglect and procrastination The

organization is also ethically wrong to take the issue to court as this issue could

have been avoided ldquooutside of courtrdquo that is without the need to filing a civil suit

as in case of a loss the enormity of the negative outcome in the civil court is too

great and could possible by costly to Johnson amp Johnsonrsquos stakeholders

One of the two organizations is guilty of copyright fraud and lying to the public

and falsifying legal matters This issue can only be solved when the civil court

ends its investigation (at press time it is unclear on whether or not a court


proceeding has occurred regarding this issue yet) It is still unknown why two

organizations that have two different ultimate objectives would and missions

would want to publicize an issue that is seemingly trivial And it is a clearly

difficult to differentiate which of the organizations deserve the higher ranking of

importance as they are formed on two different concepts and belonging to two

different categories that can appeal all parts of the masses


40 Recommendations

1 The American Red Cross should take more initiative to protect and

uphold the International Humanitarian Law in the mostly civic-minded

society in the United States of America

2 Johnson amp Johnson should research on a new symbol to represent its

pharmaceutical products as preparatory to one of the possible outcomes

of the civil suit

3 The Congress of America and the American Legal system should review

any contradicting overlapping or unresolved issue in the copyright

division and take the necessary course of action to prevent any

unwanted and wasteful complications in the future

4 The consumers of the United States of America whom are also American

Red Cross members should take a legal stand in favor of the

organization that they perceive correct in this issue to force an ldquoout of

courtrdquo resolution as their combined voice as one of the primary

stakeholders of both organizations can influence the next course of

action for this civil suit


BIBLIOGRAPHY Cross A R (2007 09 02) American Red Cross Home Page Retrieved 03 15 2008

from American Red Cross Website wwwredcrossorghome

Johnson J amp (2007 08 09) Johnson amp Johnson News Retrieved 03 15 2008 from

Johnson amp Johnson Web Site httpwwwjnjcomnews20070809_081717html

Malaysia P B (NA) Pendidikan Dalam Palang Meah dan Bulan Sabit Merah

(NA Penterjemah) NA NA Malaysia Institut Bulan Sabit Merah Malaysia


Appendix

Appendix 1 the Johnson amp Johnson public statement adapted from Johnson amp

Johnson web page at the following URL

httpwwwjnjcomnewsjnj_news20070809htmpageTemplate=preinter_friend

lyjspampcontentPage=newsnews_contentjsp

Appendix 2 the American Red Cross public statement adapted from the

following URL wwwredcrossorg (the actual URL was unavailable at press

time March 15 2008)

Appendix 3 Pendidikan Dalam Palang Merah dan Bulan Sabit Merah a manual

provided only to those whom are certified to have attended and passed the Red

Cross and Red Crescent Internal Studies and International Humanitarian Law

course Warning this manual is a closed journal that is used for private use

alone Those whom are not Malaysia Red Crescent members as it is gazette

under this course are not allowed read it The use of this manual as an appendix

is approved strictly on two conditions it has to be removed from the appendix

list after its review and it is not to be reproduced wholly or partly in any means

Appendix 4 the authorrsquos certificate that acknowledges the authorrsquos legitimate

status to use the International Humanitarian Law in aspects the author sees fit


NUMBER HEADING PAGE

10 INTRODUCTION 1

20 DISCUSSION OF ETHICAL ISSUES 3

21 THE CAUSE OF THE CIVIL SUIT 3

22 FRAUD 3

23 DECISION MAKING FRAMEWORK 3

24 COPYRIGHT VIOLATION 4

25 THE ISSUE OF PLACING THE IMPORTANCE

NOBILITY OR NUMEROUS PROFIT-BASED

STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS

4

26 THE BREACH OF THE INTERNATIONAL

HUMANITARIAN LAW

5

30 CONCLUSION 7

40 RECOMMENDATIONS 9


10 INTRODUCTION


















































22 Fraud







system



















































































30 Conclusion








































40 Recommendations






of the civil suit



















Appendix







time March 15 2008)












10 INTRODUCTION


















































22 Fraud







system



















































































30 Conclusion








































40 Recommendations






of the civil suit



















Appendix







time March 15 2008)































22 Fraud







system



















































































30 Conclusion








































40 Recommendations






of the civil suit



















Appendix







time March 15 2008)























22 Fraud







system



















































































30 Conclusion








































40 Recommendations






of the civil suit



















Appendix







time March 15 2008)





















































































30 Conclusion








































40 Recommendations






of the civil suit



















Appendix







time March 15 2008)























































30 Conclusion








































40 Recommendations






of the civil suit



















Appendix







time March 15 2008)





















30 Conclusion








































40 Recommendations






of the civil suit



















Appendix







time March 15 2008)












30 Conclusion








































40 Recommendations






of the civil suit



















Appendix







time March 15 2008)



















40 Recommendations






of the civil suit



















Appendix







time March 15 2008)












40 Recommendations






of the civil suit



















Appendix







time March 15 2008)



















Appendix







time March 15 2008)












Appendix







time March 15 2008)











Documents

An Ethical Insight