« PředchozíPokračovat »
67, 547 82, 193
Mar. 1, 1899 1897
June 13, 1931
Apr. 23, 1932
90, 753 137, 205
May 1, 1901.
Design claims red and
May 10, 1941
Emile Brunor Certain chemicals
Feb. 11, 1908 Albany Perforated WrapToilet paper
June 13, 1911
change of name).
Mar. 18, 1913
pants, diapers, etc.
use in medical, surgical
gauze or cheesecloth.
Surgical gauze in piece and Sept. 13, 1932
in cut lengths, band-
Paper for toilet purposes, do
namely, paper towels.
Nov. 15, 1926.
Cross as shown.
MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT TRANSMITTING REPORT
FROM ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE
A REPORT FROM THE ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE WITH AN ACCOMPANYING DRAFT BILL, DESIGNED THE MORE EFFECTIVELY TO CARRY OUT OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE RED CROSS CONVENTION OF 1929
APRIL 6, 1942.-Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to
To the Congress of the United States of America:
I am transmitting for the consideration of the Congress the enclosed report from the Acting Secretary of State, with an accompanying draft bill, designed the more effectively to carry out our obligations under the Red Cross Convention of 1929.
I commend the report and the proposed legislation to the favorable consideration of the Congress.
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT. (Enclosures: (1) Report; (2) draft bill.) THE WHITE HOUSE, April 3, 1942.
The protection of the emblem of the Red Cross and the words "Red Cross” and “Geneva Cross," which was important in times of peace, is even more important now that we are at war, and makes it necessary to take steps to prevent their use for commercial purposes.
The Red Cross was given its distinctive name and emblem by the convention of 1864. The United States became a party to that convention in 1882. The first American National Association of the Red Cross was formed in Washington in 1881. From the beginning it was contemplated that the distinctive name and emblem should be used only by governments, through their medical, sanitary, and relief services, and by the national societies to be formed in the different countries. Unfortunately, our legislation has never been entirely adequate to protect either the name or emblem against commercial exploitation.
It was not until January 5, 1905, when the American National Red Cross was reincorporated by act of Congress, that commercial exploitation was prohibited by Federal statute; and the prohibition enacted was effective only as to persons or corporations not then "lawfully entitled to use the sign of the Red Cross.”. Two years later, in 1907, on becoming a party to the revised Red Cross conven
on of 1906, the United States assumed an express obligation under the convention to prohibit all commercial exploitation. Notwithstanding the obligation thus freely assumed, the act of June 23, 1910, contains a clause providing thatno person, corporation, or association that actually used or whose assignor actually used the said emblem, sign, insignia, or words for any lawful purpose prior to January fifth, nineteen hundred and five, shall be deemed forbidden by this Act to continue the use thereof for the same purpose and for the same class of goods
The obligation assumed under the 1906 convention was amplified and reaffirmed in the Red Cross convention of 1929, to which the United States became a party in 1932, but nothing has been done with respect to amending the acts of 1905 and 1910 so as to carry out the obligation contained in chapter VIII, article 28, of that convention which provides:
The Governments of the High Contracting Parties whose legislation may not now be adequate shall take or shall recommend to their legislatures such measures as may be necessary at all times:
a) 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 of the name of the Red Cross or Geneva Cross, as well as any other sign or designation constituting an imitation thereof, whether for commercial or other purposes;
b) by reason of the homage rendered to Switzerland as a result of the adoption of the inverted Federal colors, to prevent the use, by private persons or by organizations, of the arms of the Swiss Confederation or of signs constituting an imitation thereof, whether as trade-marks, commercial labels, or portions thereof, or in any way contrary to commercial ethics, or under conditions wounding Swiss national pride.
The prohibition mentioned in subparagraph a) of the use of signs or designations constituting an imitation of the emblem or designation of the Red Cross or Geneva Cross, as well as the prohibition mentioned in subparagraph b) of the use of the arms of the Swiss Confederation or signs constituting an imitation thereof, 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 take out a trade-mark or commercial label contrary to such prohibitions."
Other nations recognizing their treaty commitments have enacted laws to prevent the use of the name and emblem for commercial purposes. I am told that the extent to which the name and emblem is presently being used in the sale of varied products has grown out of all proportion to its commercial use in the period prior to the passage
of the original act. The resulting confusion is today a source of increasing embarrassment and danger to the Medical Corps of our armed forces, in our relations with foreign countries, and to the farflung activities of the American Red Cross.
I attach for your consideration a draft bill designed to amend the existing law in a manner which would enable us to discharge our conventional obligations and at the same time protect our medical and sanitary services and the American Red Cross. The bill was prepared in the Department of Justice and has the approval of the Attorney General and the chairman of the American National Red Cross. I also understand that it has the approval of the Surgeons General of the Army and the Navy. Respectfully submitted.
Acting Secretary of State. (Enclosure: Draft bill.)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, April 1, 1942. A BILL To implement article 28 of the Convention signed at Geneva on July 27, 1929, and proclaimed by the President on August 4, 1932 (47 Stat. 2074, 2092), by making it a criminal offense for any person to use the emblem and name of the Red Cross for commercial or other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 4 of the Act entitled "An Act to incorporate the American National Red Cross," approved January 5, 1905 (33 Stat. 600), as amended (Act of June 23, 1910, 36 Stat. 604, U. S. Čode, title 36, sec. 4), be, and it hereby is, further amended to read as follows:
“SEC. 4. That from and after the passage of this Act it shall be unlawful for any person within the jurisdiction of the United States to falsely or fraudulently hold himself out as or represent or pretend himself to be a member of or an agent for the American National Red Cross for the purpose of soliciting, collecting, or receiving money or material; or for any person to wear or display the sign of the Red Cross or any insignia colored, in imitation thereof for the fraudulent purpose of inducing the belief that he is a member of or an agent for the American National Red Cross. It shall be unlawful for any person, corporation, or association other than the American National Red Cross and its duly authorized employees and agents and the army and navy sanitary and hospital authorities of the United States for the purpose of trade or as an advertisement to induce the sale of any article whatsoever or for any business or charitable purpose to use within the territory of the United States of America and its exterior possessions the emblem of the Greek Red Cross on a white ground, or any sign or insignia made or colored in imitation thereof, or of the words 'Red Cross' or "Geneva Cross' or any combination of these words: Provided, however, That any person, corporation, or association that actually used or whose assignor actually used the said emblem, sign, insignia, or words for any lawful purpose prior to January fifth, nineteen hundred and five, may continue the use thereof for the same purpose and for the same class of goods for a period not exceeding one year after the date of the enactment of this Act. If any person, corporation, or association, or any member, director, officer, agent, representative or employee thereof violates the provision of this section he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction in any federal court shall be liable to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both, for each and every offense.”
JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
New Brunswick, N. J., May 7, 1942. Re H. R. 6911 The Honorable SoL BLOOM, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BLOOM: At the hearing before your committee in the afternoon of April 23, 1942, you requested that I furnish the committee a schedule listing the products of Johnson & Johnson bearing the red cross prior to January 5, 1905,
and those bearing the red cross today. Enclosed is such a schedule.
I have made a sincere effort to have this list accurate and complete. I am confident that I have achieved neither objective. We are dealing with situations sometimes more than 50 years old. Price lists and catalogs are not available for all years, are incomplete for others, and samples are not always available. This is particularly true in the instance of Seabury, Inc. (formerly Seabury & Johnson). It is also true with respect to other companies that were merged with this company in years past, such as J. Ellwood Lee Co. and Van Horn & Sawtell, one at least of which used the red cross at one time.
Examination of the schedule reveals that there is a substantially smaller number of products bearing the red cross today than the number bearing the red cross in 1905 and prior years. The count indicates 168 products bearing the red cross today in comparison with 211 bearing the red cross in 1905 and prior years. Many products have been discontinued. Even classes of products, such as antiseptics and poultices, have been discontinued.
There are, of course, a few articles manufactured today and bearing the red cross which vary in form from articles manufactured in 1905. These improvements and modifications are, I believe, within the same classes of goods as explained under item 4 of my letter to you dated May 6, 1942, commenting on the 11 points suggested by Mr. Carter.
In spite of the fact that fewer articles bear the red cross today than bore it in 1905, the company manufactures today many more individual articles than it did in 1905.. In 1905 all of its articles bore the red cross. Today many articles added since 1905 do not bear the red cross. The staples, of course, such as cotton, gauze, bandage, adhesive, and the like continue to bear the established trade-mark. Moreover, whereas all of the business was done by and in the name of Johnson & Johnson in 1905, today a substantial portion of the total volume of business is done by and in the name of subsidiaries. No subsidiary uses the name or symbol of the red cross.
I shall be pleased to have you call upon me for any additional information that I may furnish. Very respectfully yours,
KENNETH PERRY. Products bearing red cross determined in examining price lists of 1888 and subsequent
Earliest year in price
1888 Arnica. Belladonna
1888 Belladonna. Belladonna and capsicum
1888 Belladonna and capsicum. Capsicum.
1888 Capsicum. Canthos (blister).
1888 Canthos (blister). Capsicin (Johnson's)
1888 Red Cross kidney.
1888 Red Cross plaster. Johnson's.
1904 Johnson's back. Lead
1888 Red Cross medicated.
1888 Opium and belladonna.
1888 Poor man's plaster.
1888 Red Cross plaster
1888 Salicylic acid
1888 Mustard, J. & J. chest protector. Spice-
1900 Alzam, Adhesive: Aseptic adhesive strips
1902 Baby name tapes. Belleview adhesive strips..
1904 Plaster strips...
1904 zo adhesive strips. 1 This list is submitted in accordance with committee request. While sincere effort has been made for accuracy and completeness, it is certain that within the time permitted neither completeness nor total accuracy has been attained. In fact, there is doubt that they can be attained from records in hand.