in 2015 The
Geneva Conventions specifies that the emblems recognized by the Convention may only be used for: • Medical aircraft; vehicles, hospital trains, and vessels (
First Geneva Convention, Article 36;
Second Geneva Convention, Article 39;
Fourth Geneva Convention, Articles 21, 22) • Medical equipment (First Geneva Convention, Article 39; Second Geneva Convention, Article 41) • Medical personnel;
military chaplains; religious, medical, and hospital personnel of hospital ships; personnel of civilian hospitals (First Geneva Convention, Article 40; Second Geneva Convention, Article 42; Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 20) • Staff of national Red Cross societies and other voluntary aid societies (First Geneva Convention, Article 40) • Medical facilities; fixed medical establishments and mobile medical units (First Geneva Convention, Article 42) • Hospital ships of the armed forces, national Red Cross societies, relief societies, and private persons; lifeboats of hospital ships; small craft of the state or lifeboat institutions for coastal rescue operations (Second Geneva Convention, Article 43) • Civilian hospitals (Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 18) • Safety zones (Fourth Geneva Convention, Annex I, Article 6) In order to ensure universal respect for the emblems, the Geneva Conventions obliged their signatories to forbid any other use of the names and emblems in wartime and peacetime. Nevertheless, the illegal usage of the emblem is widespread and it is often used as a general symbol to indicate
first aid, medical supplies and civilian medical services especially in walk-in clinics. Such uses appear in movies (a notable example is
The Living Daylights, wherein narcotics were disguised as Red Cross care packages, as a plot device), on television, and in computer software and games. Service companies, such as those for car repair or lawn maintenance, tout themselves as service "doctors" and incorporate medical symbols to promote themselves. In the United States, given the broad protection to free speech provided by the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is highly unlikely a court would stop the mere use of any of the protected symbols in a video game or film as it can be argued that the use is critical to the story and its grounding in reality. In a similar issue involving the
Stolen Valor Act of 2005, finding the unauthorized wearing or use of the
Medal of Honor a criminal offense unconstitutional by the US supreme Court, there would have to be more than just the use of the symbol as part of a computer program or motion picture, such as advertising of the game or film using the symbol in advertising, merchandise carrying the symbol, or claims the use was approved by the International Red Cross. Prior to 1973, ambulances in the United States and elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere were typically marked with a
safety orange cross, differing from the red cross only in its hue. Toys and paintings of ambulances commonly ignored even that nuance, instead using a red cross. After protests from the
American Red Cross that the safety orange cross was insufficiently distinguishable from the protected Red Cross symbol, the
U.S. Department of Transportation developed the blue
Star of Life as a replacement for the safety orange cross. The blue Star of Life has since been adopted throughout much of the world on ambulances and in other related applications. But in most
post-Soviet countries, inherited from the
Soviet Union, the Red Cross still remains a symbol of medicine, used on
first-aid kits and
ambulances. In 2006, the Canadian Red Cross issued a press release asking video game makers to stop using the red cross in their games; it is an especially common sight to see first aid kits and other items which restore the player character's
health marked with a red cross. In 2017,
Introversion Software, creators of indie game
Prison Architect, were contacted by the
British Red Cross regarding usage of red cross on the hoods of ambulances and backpacks of paramedics in the game; the emblem was subsequently modified. In order to avoid this conflict, other generic alternatives are used, such as a green cross, a white cross on a red background, or the letter H. Pre-existing trademarks are protected in the implementing legislation of other countries, including
Australia,
New Zealand, and the
United Kingdom and its dependencies. In many countries, it is a violation of the
rule of law to seize
intellectual property lawfully created prior to a ban without compensating its owner through
eminent domain, with limited exceptions for offensive or dangerous uses. (For example, a red cross on a building conveys a potentially false and dangerous impression of military presence in the area to enemy aircraft, although the building itself would not be attacked; thus the U.S.
reservations to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, as noted
below, effectively ban that use.) In recognition of this fact,
Protocol III expressly preserves most pre-2005 trademarks containing the Red Crystal, as long as they cannot be confused with military uses. Trademarks from after 2005 bearing the emblem are banned as there is no longer an issue of
retroactive law. The
flag of Tonga designed in 1862 happened to be a red cross on a white field; in 1866, when the similarity to the Red Cross flag was noted, the Tonga flag was changed to put the red cross in a
canton.
International protection of images The protected status of these images was established in the
First Geneva Convention which states: • Art. 44. With the exception of the cases mentioned in the following paragraphs of the present Article, the emblem of the red cross on a white ground and the words "Red Cross" or " Geneva Cross " may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments, the personnel and material protected by the present Convention and other Conventions dealing with similar matters. The same shall apply to the emblems mentioned in Article 38, second paragraph, in respect of the countries which use them. The National Red Cross Societies and other societies designated in Article 26 shall have the right to use the distinctive emblem conferring the protection of the Convention only within the framework of the present paragraph. • Art. 44. (cont.) Furthermore, National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies may, in time of peace, in accordance with their national legislation, make use of the name and emblem of the Red Cross for their other activities which are in conformity with the principles laid down by the International Red Cross Conferences. When those activities are carried out in time of war, the conditions for the use of the emblem shall be such that it cannot be considered as conferring the protection of the convention; the emblem shall be comparatively small in size and may not be placed on armlets or on the roofs of buildings. • Art. 53 furthermore declares all present and future unapproved usage of said symbols illegal, even when they had been used previously. Signatories of the contract would have had three years after signing to enforce this. As a reference to Switzerland, Article 53 also forbids the use of
its flag as a trademark, for advertising or other similar purposes.
Use of the emblems in Canada The Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal, and Red Lion and Sun emblems are protected under the
Trade-marks Act, section 9(1), paragraphs f, g, g.1, and h, respectively: {{quote|
Prohibited marks{{ubli {{ubli|[...]
Use of the emblems in Hong Kong The , in Section 3(c) "Unauthorized distribution of badges and products", states: This restriction on the use of the emblem was added in 1995.
Use of the emblems in the United Kingdom The use of the emblems in the United Kingdom are governed by the
Geneva Conventions Act 1957 as amended by
Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1995 and several Orders as
Statutory Instruments.
Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Act 2009 extended the protection to the Red Crystal. The unauthorised use of the Red Cross on a pantomime costume in Glasgow in 2011 resulted in a request for its removal. A similar situation occurred in Norwich in 2015.
Use of the emblems in the United States A notable exception to this is the
United States where, although the United States first ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1882, for 18 years no legislation was passed to enact treaty obligations regarding the protection of the Red Cross symbol. On 6 June 1900, the bill to charter the
American National Red Cross (ARC) was signed into law. Section 4, which ultimately was codified as 18 U.S.C. §706, protected the
Greek red cross symbol by making it a misdemeanor for any person or association to use the Red Cross name or emblem without the organization's permission. Penalties included imprisonment not to exceed one year and a fine between $1 and $500, payable to the ARC. There had been seven trademark registrations for Greek red crosses by entities unrelated to the Red Cross at the time the ARC was incorporated. The existence of these users was recognized in congressional discussion of the act. However, lawmakers took no action to prohibit the rights of these earlier users. In 1905, when Congress was revising the ARC's charter, the issue of pre-existing rights to use the emblem was again raised. Lawmakers reiterated Congress' intent that the prohibitions on use of the Red Cross name and emblem did not make unlawful the use of the Greek red cross by those with otherwise established rights. However, these sentiments were again not reflected in the Red Cross charter revision. At the time of the 1905 revision, the number of trademark registrations with a Greek red cross had grown to 61, including several by
Johnson & Johnson. Concerned over potential pre-emption, commercial users lobbied for codification of their existing trademark rights. In 1910, Congress formally established that lawful use of the Red Cross name and emblem that began prior to 5 January 1905, could continue, but only if that use was "for the same purpose and for the same class of goods". Later, the U.S. ratified the 1949 revisions to the
Geneva Conventions with a specific
reservation that pre-1905 Red Cross trademarks would not be disturbed as long as the Red Cross is not used on "aircraft, vessels, vehicles, buildings or other structures, or upon the ground", all of which are likely to be confused with military uses. Until 2007, U.S. law protected only the Red Cross, and permitted its use only by the ARC and U.S. armed forces; though its use by non-U.S. organizations would normally be implied by the ARC's membership in IFRC and the standard protocols of the military and the Red Cross & Red Crescent movement, the ARC's withholding of IFRC dues from 2000 to 2006 over the Magen David Adom (MDA) issue raised concerns. Both to implement
Protocol III (which had received advice and consent from the
United States Senate in 2006; the U.S. formalized its ratification in March 2007) and to address these concerns, the
Geneva Distinctive Emblems Protection Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–481) was signed into law 12 January 2007, two days before Protocol III went into effect. The law, codified as 18 U.S.C. §706a, extended full legal protection to the Red Crescent and Red Crystal (but not the Red Lion and Sun) in the U.S., subject to private uses prior to the signing of Protocol III that cannot be confused with military uses; permitted the use of all appropriate emblems under the Conventions by the ICRC, the IFRC, all national Red Cross & Red Crescent societies (including MDA by this time), and "(t)he sanitary and hospital authorities of the armed forces of State Parties to the Geneva Conventions"; and permitted the
United States Attorney General to obtain
injunctions against improper use of the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Red Crystal in the U.S. U.S. law still does not specifically protect the right of military chaplains to use the emblems under the Geneva Conventions; however, military chaplains that are part of their armed forces' "sanitary and hospital authorities" would have the right to use the emblems in the U.S. The ARC and other Red Cross & Red Crescent entities also employ chaplains; they are entitled to use the emblems through their employment.
Johnson & Johnson v. American Red Cross On 9 August 2007, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) filed suit against the
American Red Cross alleging
trademark infringement. The suit sought to halt the placement of the Red Cross emblem on all first aid, safety and disaster preparedness products not specifically licensed by Johnson & Johnson. The suit also asked for the destruction of all currently existing non-J&J Red Cross emblem-bearing products of this type, and demanded the American Red Cross pay
punitive damages and J&J's legal fees. J&J released a statement to the public on 8 August 2007, detailing its decision to file suit, claiming prior rights to the emblem. On the same date, the American Red Cross issued a press release of its own, stating some of the reasons behind its decision to
license the Red Cross emblem to first aid and disaster preparedness product manufacturers. It issued a further press release two days later, disputing several of J&J's claims and asserting that "The Red Cross has been selling first aid kits commercially in the United States since 1903." In a statement, the American Red Cross said it had worked since 2004 with several licensing partners to create first aid, preparedness and related products that bear the Red Cross emblem. The charity said that all money it received from the sale of these products to consumers was reinvested in its humanitarian programs and services. "For a multi-billion dollar drug company to claim that the Red Cross violated a criminal statute that was created to protect the humanitarian mission of the Red Cross—simply so that J&J can make more money—is obscene", said Mark Everson, the chief executive of the charity. Johnson & Johnson responded, stating that the American Red Cross's commercial ventures were outside the scope of historically well-agreed usage, and were in direct violation of federal statutes. The federal court rejected Johnson & Johnson's position and ruled for the American Red Cross, holding that federal law authorizes the American Red Cross to use the Red Cross emblem in the sale of mission-related items like first aid and disaster preparedness kits and to license other firms to use its name and emblem to sell such products. The court noted in particular that the American Red Cross had been doing so for over a century, and that Johnson & Johnson had once itself sought to be a licensee of the American Red Cross. After the court rejected the substance of Johnson & Johnson's complaint, the parties ultimately settled their differences, and the American Red Cross remains free to use its emblem commercially. ==See also==