Defending "For The Cure"
Jan. 7th, 2011 03:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jayfurrMany people have heard recently, via a Huffington Post article or via a story that aired on the Colbert Report, that the Susan G. Komen organization is allegedly spending millions of donor dollars suing organizations that attempt to use the phrase "For The Cure" in their own fundraising activities.
I've been very bothered by these stories. Yes, they have a grain of truth to them. There have been legal efforts brought by Susan G. Komen For The Cure.
However, the truth is more nuanced than one might, at first blush, think. Here's my take on things:
First: I do not work for Susan G. Komen For The Cure or any of its affiliates. Nor am I an attorney.
That being said, it is an unfortunate fact of American trademark law that if you do not 'defend' your trademark, you lose it.
Susan G. Komen has invested a great deal of time and effort in guaranteeing that when someone donates to an organization or cause with "For The Cure" in its name, they are donating to an organization that they can trust and that will use the funds in a good way.
If they literally let anyone with good intentions use "For The Cure", they are extending their reputation into areas they cannot control and potentially risking everything they've built. I've gotten plenty of fundraising calls from fly-by-night organizations that turn over a tiny, tiny percentage of the funds they raise to the actual cause they claim to support. If Komen did not take action to protect their trademark, people might well donate to, oh, "Hikers For The Cure" only to find out later than everything donated went to line the organizers' pockets. This happens a LOT more often than you might think.
When an organization chooses to represent itself as "_____ For The Cure", rather than coming up with their own name, they're doing it precisely BECAUSE of the good will the Komen organization has built up and the trust the American people have in that phrase. Komen has a responsibility to see to it that the name continues to only be used by organizations that are trusted and responsible, and who will see to it that the donated money goes where the donors THINK it's going: to the fight against breast cancer.
Unfortunately, some of the organizations who chose to 'borrow' For The Cure chose to fight rather than cooperate ... and that's too bad, because the Komen organization has been more than willing to work out compromises that would permit use of the name, with a qualifier, such as when Kites For The Cure was allowed to use the term provided it was used in connection with the words "Uniting Against Lung Cancer" to make clear that it was not Komen-affiliated and that the money raised would NOT be going toward breast cancer.
That's the actual truth of this story -- and that's why, in the end, I am more than happy to continue volunteering and walking on behalf of Susan G. Komen For The Cure. Despite the bad press, no other organization comes close to the track record that the Komen organization possesses in the fight against breast cancer.
I've been very bothered by these stories. Yes, they have a grain of truth to them. There have been legal efforts brought by Susan G. Komen For The Cure.
However, the truth is more nuanced than one might, at first blush, think. Here's my take on things:
First: I do not work for Susan G. Komen For The Cure or any of its affiliates. Nor am I an attorney.
That being said, it is an unfortunate fact of American trademark law that if you do not 'defend' your trademark, you lose it.
Susan G. Komen has invested a great deal of time and effort in guaranteeing that when someone donates to an organization or cause with "For The Cure" in its name, they are donating to an organization that they can trust and that will use the funds in a good way.
If they literally let anyone with good intentions use "For The Cure", they are extending their reputation into areas they cannot control and potentially risking everything they've built. I've gotten plenty of fundraising calls from fly-by-night organizations that turn over a tiny, tiny percentage of the funds they raise to the actual cause they claim to support. If Komen did not take action to protect their trademark, people might well donate to, oh, "Hikers For The Cure" only to find out later than everything donated went to line the organizers' pockets. This happens a LOT more often than you might think.
When an organization chooses to represent itself as "_____ For The Cure", rather than coming up with their own name, they're doing it precisely BECAUSE of the good will the Komen organization has built up and the trust the American people have in that phrase. Komen has a responsibility to see to it that the name continues to only be used by organizations that are trusted and responsible, and who will see to it that the donated money goes where the donors THINK it's going: to the fight against breast cancer.
Unfortunately, some of the organizations who chose to 'borrow' For The Cure chose to fight rather than cooperate ... and that's too bad, because the Komen organization has been more than willing to work out compromises that would permit use of the name, with a qualifier, such as when Kites For The Cure was allowed to use the term provided it was used in connection with the words "Uniting Against Lung Cancer" to make clear that it was not Komen-affiliated and that the money raised would NOT be going toward breast cancer.
That's the actual truth of this story -- and that's why, in the end, I am more than happy to continue volunteering and walking on behalf of Susan G. Komen For The Cure. Despite the bad press, no other organization comes close to the track record that the Komen organization possesses in the fight against breast cancer.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Supporting documentation...
Date: 2011-01-07 10:21 pm (UTC)http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20110107/COLUMN0101/101070339/1066/COLUMN
The article also references the Charity Navigator rating on SGK as four stars with the only blemish being the CEOs salary.
All the research I did today about the "wastefulness" of SGK's legal battles has actually made me realize why they are doing what they are doing and I agree with their efforts (in moderation).
Charity Navigator's profile on SGK
Date: 2011-01-07 10:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-07 10:30 pm (UTC)Another point I wish more people were aware of is that MANY of the so-called "non-profits" who've tangled with Komen over the use of "For The Cure" are not charities at all. A simple search at http://tess2.uspto.gov/ for "for the cure" (in quotes) shows that many, MANY people trying to register and use variations on that phrase are not charities at all, but individuals whose intent for the mark is "Clothing, namely, t-shirts, golf shirts, baseball caps, shorts, windbreakers, socks, sweatshirts, sweat pants".
Yet people automatically assume that if they buy a t-shirt that says "I Wear Pink For The Cure" it's going to help fight breast cancer.
Nope, it's going to line a t-shirt seller's pockets.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-07 10:38 pm (UTC)Re: Supporting documentation...
Date: 2011-01-08 01:08 am (UTC)And, if the CEO's guidance has gotten them to 93% fundraising efficiency, then a $400,000 salary is arguably a pretty good investment.
I do find myself a little disturbed that they're asserting trademark over any use of the color pink with the word "cure" -- that seems incredibly broad, so it's not terribly surprising that they've had conflict with so many smaller charities. I'm finding it hard to believe the USPTO awarded such a broad trademark in the first place.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-08 02:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-08 06:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-10 01:50 am (UTC)well-established
Date: 2011-12-17 05:41 pm (UTC)