“The fact that the ultimate purpose of these licensing activities is a ‘charitable purpose’ - i.e. to raise funds that ARC, a not-for-profit organisation, can utilise for its charitable endeavours only further emphasises their legitimacy,” his decision said.

Judge Rakoff said the doubtfulness of Johnson & Johnson’s claim against the organisation was “well illustrated by the ironic fact” that in 1986 the company itself entered into a similar promotional agreement with the Red Cross. At that time, the company agreed to donate 5 cents to the Red Cross for coupons redeemed to buy company products. The coupons said: “Help Johnson & Johnson support the American Red Cross. For each purchase with the coupon below, Johnson & Johnson will donate 5 cents to the American Red Cross.”

While some claims in the case remain unresolved, including the accusation that the Red Cross purposely interfered with two of the company’s business partners, the Red Cross all but declared victory on Thursday. “We have been vindicated by the court on the major issues,” the organisation’s acting chief executive, Mary S Elcano, said. “We want them to get rid of this case. It’s been meritless from the very beginning.”

Elcano also said the case had been a disruption, requiring hearings and document requests that have disrupted the organisation’s charitable activities since last August, when the lawsuit was filed. “That’s what we want to be about: to deliver the lifesaving services that the Red Cross provides,” she said.

Marc Monseau, a Johnson & Johnson spokesman, said: “We are disappointed that the court rejected our claims involving ARC’s commercial uses of the emblem. We are reviewing the decision and look forward to continuing this process to resolve our legal dispute with the American Red Cross.”

... contd.