Using the "Red Cross" symbol in health objects

Thank you for the link! It differs from the german law. Which also means, that you can get in trouble depending on where you publish your creation.

The ARC charter of 1910 clearly states that using the red cross is against the law if it's used on vehicles, vessels, aircraft, buildings or other structures, or upon the ground. No mention of use outside those conditions, as far as I've read. That leads me to believe that they are not so much concerned about protecting a red cross from being used as they are trying to protect the symbol that represents the ARC from being misused.That especially is different to the german implementation of the geneva convention. And I think that you may be reading it literally. For example, "use the red cross and the words 'red cross'" doesn't mean you may only 'use it in conjunction', but 'as well the sign as the words'. Here's the original geneva convention article, that's responsible: article 44

"The international Red Cross organizations and their duly authorized personnel shall be permitted to make use, at all times, of the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground." Only those are permitted to use the red cross on white background. Don't you think so too?

If you are still worried about using it in a game, don't. It's not worth the headache. Use a heart symbol or something else to represent health.I'm not worried. It was my intention to

1) tell the people that the red cross on white background is an international protection sign, created to protect victims of armed conflicts and the people who help them. This is severe, and it should be handled with respect, even without reference to law.

2) state that it is much safer, just as you said, to use some other symbol than to hope to get off lightly.

If people then decide to use it anyway, well, I at least have tried my best to convince them beforehand.

Yeah, when it comes to game design, all the fun stuff is banned by Germany.

tulamide

You ever read the example you posted??

It�s about a dude who made a flyer how to stay save, and protect yourself from injuries. Of course you can�t take the red cross for this reasons. That�s like taking the coca cola symbol to sell your own coke.

Also he paid 700 bugs + 5% for that.

"An den Kl�ger 699,90 EUR zuz�glich Zinsen in H�he von 5 % �ber dem Basiszinssatz seit dem 1. Dezember 2004 zu zahlen;"

Please be more careful with your information.

Beaverlicious

I'm sorry, but you are the one who should be more careful. The passage you quoted, was the petition of the plaintiff. The court instead sentenced exactly what I wrote. You will sure find the correct passage, if reading it again with a bit more attention.

And thank you for confirming what I said several times in this thread, which is, that the use of the red cross on white background is reserved to the red cross organistion. I also think, just like you with your coke example, that it should be self-evident.

And the flyer btw. was about first aid on demonstrations and events

tulamide

Read the article again and can�t find a passage where he is judged to 250k.

The red cross wanted 40k+Lawyer etc. but the flyer-dude didn�t have to pay anything besides 606,30�. The rest was obviously invalid, because of a earlier case where the court has decided different. He could�t know that.

Please correct me, if i�m getting things wrong here, I�m not a lawyer.

F�r die H�he des Gegenstandswertes ist auf das Interesse des Kl�gers an der k�nftigen Unterbindung des beanstandeten Verhaltens abzustellen. Der Kl�ger hat im vorliegenden Rechtsstreit den Streitwert mit insgesamt 50.000 EUR angegeben. Mit der vorliegenden Klage macht der Kl�ger neben dem Unterlassungsanspruch noch Folgeanspr�che (Auskunfts- und Schadensersatzfeststellungsanspr�che) geltend, so dass im vorliegenden Rechtsstreit der Wert des Unterlassungsanspruchs mit 40.000 EUR zu beziffern ist. Dieser Gegenstandswert ist auch dem vorprozessualen Abmahnschreiben zugrunde zu legen.

Nach dem RVG ist die Anrechnung der Gesch�ftsgeb�hr f�r eine au�ergerichtliche T�tigkeit neu geregelt. Soweit wegen desselben Gegenstandes eine Gesch�ftsgeb�hr nach Nr. 2400 VV entstanden ist, wird diese zur H�lfte, jedoch h�chstens mit einem Geb�hrensatz von 0,75 auf die Verfahrensgeb�hr des gerichtlichen Verfahrens angerechnet (Vorbem. 3 Abs.4 zur VV RVG).

Erfolgt nunmehr eine nach dem RVG geregelte Anrechnung der au�ergerichtlichen Kosten zur H�lfte, berechnet sich der Erstattungsbetrag wie folgt:

Gegenstandswert: 40.000,- EUR

1,3 Gesch�ftsgeb�hr des Rechtsanwalts

Nr.2400 VV RVG:

1.172,60 EUR

Auslagenpauschale des Rechtsanwalts

20,00 EUR

Anrechnung gem. Vorbem. 3 Abs.4 VV RVG

586,30 EUR

Gesamtbetrag:

606,30 EUR

To your second statement... of course this example was pretty obvious, but I guess you don�t see the difference in using a symbol in creating something like a rivalry-product than to use it in a context, it doesn�t affect things.

I mean ....you see thousand of mercedes stars, MacBooks, coke cans etcetcetc every day in television. What about that? You could�t even wear a adidas-pullover in your home videos :D

Sure, I'll help as much as I can to clear things up for you :)

tulamide

Read the article again and can?t find a passage where he is judged to 250k.I never said so.

This is what I wrote:

Also I added just one of quite a few verdicts. In this case a group of people, who printed a brochure using the red cross on white background although not related to the red cross federation, were sentenced to pay 607?, and also aren't allowed to ever again use the sign or the brochure. If they do, they will have to pay 250,000?

And here are the paragraphs from the verdict to prove me right:

"I. Der Beklagte wird verurteilt, es bei Meidung eines f?r jeden Fall der Zuwiderhandlung festzusetzenden Ordnungsgeldes, ersatzweise Ordnungshaft, oder einer Ordnungshaft bis zu sechs Monaten (Ordnungsgeld im Einzelfall h?chstens 250.000 EUR; Ordnungshaft insgesamt h?chstens zwei Jahre)zu unterlassen,..."

Short form: Don't you ever use that flyer again, or you'll pay 250,000? (or go to jail for a maximum of 2 years, if can't pay)

"II. Der Beklagte wird verurteilt, an den Kl?ger 606,30EURzuz?glich Zinsen in H?he von 5 % ?ber dem Basiszinssatz seit dem 17. Dezember 2004 zu zahlen."

I rounded up to 607, I didn't think that I would have to mention every cent ;)

The red cross wanted 40k+Lawyer etc. but the flyer-dude didn?t have to pay anything besides 606,30?. The rest was obviously invalid, because of a earlier case where the court has decided different. He could?t know that.

Please correct me, if i?m getting things wrong here, I?m not a lawyer.Absolutely correct, hence me saying they were sentenced to pay 607?

To your second statement... of course this example was pretty obvious, but I guess you don?t see the difference in using a symbol in creating something like a rivalry-product than to use it in a context, it doesn?t affect things.It wasn't a rivalry-product. It wasn't a product at all. It was a flyer explaining first aid methods in case someone gets hurt in a demonstration. And that's why I chose this verdict. If you can't use a flyer explaining first aid using a red cross on white background in doing so, then a game using first aid kits with a red cross on white background will also not be allowed (if someone sues you, that is)

I mean ....you see thousand of mercedes stars, MacBooks, coke cans etcetcetc every day in television. What about that? You could?t even wear a adidas-pullover in your home videos :DThat's called 'product placement' and is a very welcomed business to advertise products without actually marking it as a commercial.

Thank you for this interesting read, i actually use med kits with the white background and red cross, ill reconsider my usage and fix around it!