<P> 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 . </P> <P> 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 seeks 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 asks for the destruction of all currently existing non-J&J Red Cross emblem - bearing products of this type, and demands the American Red Cross pay punitive damages and J&J's legal fees . </P> <P> 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 "(t) he Red Cross has been selling first aid kits commercially in the United States since 1903 ." </P> <P> In a statement, the Red Cross said it has worked since 2004 with several licensing partners to create first aid, preparedness and related products that bear the Red Cross emblem . The charity says that all money it receives from the sale of these products to consumers is 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 Red Cross's commercial ventures were outside the scope of historically well - agreed usage, and were in direct violation of federal statutes . </P>

What is the meaning of the red cross symbol