Trademarking their territory.
Did you know that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation has spent $1 million suing other cancer charities for infringing on their trademarked phrase “for the cure”?
“It happened to my family,” said Roxanne Donovan, whose sister runs Kites for a Cure, a family kite-flying event that raises money for lung cancer research. “They came after us ferociously with a big law firm. They said they own ‘cure’ in a name and we had to stop using it, even though we were raising money for an entirely different cause.”
And one that’s not nearly as well funded as breast-cancer research. But Komen goes after other breast-cancer charities too.
Sue Prom, who started a small dog sledding fundraiser for breast cancer called “Mush for the Cure” in Grand Marais, Minn., said she was shocked to hear from Komen’s lawyers this summer asking that she change the name of her event or face legal proceedings.
Don’t worry, mom-and-pop charities, Komen’s lawyer offers the following reassurance: “It’s never our goal to shut down a nonprofit, and we try very hard to be reasonable, but it’s still our obligation to make sure that our trademarks are used appropriately so there’s no confusion in the marketplace over where people’s money is going.”
Komen has more than two hundred registered trademarks. Hey, when you’re working in the lucrative marketplace of cancer-research charities, you have to cover all your bases.
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Tip/Wag – Susan G. Komen Foundation & Spider-Man Musical<a> | ||||
|
||||
What do you expect from Komen, which adamantly refuses to stop supporting the nation’s largest abortion mill, Planned Parenthood?
http://catholicexchange.com/2010/06/09/131119/
This is not an abortion thread.
Maybe Komen should ask McDonald’s how much goodwill it has generated by going after anybody and anybody who uses the name McDonald in a business context, in Scotland no less (where something like 20% of the population bears the same name).
This is one difficulty, however, when you adopt “regular words” as part of your trademark — if it was for “the Kure” it would be a valid trademark for sure (that’s why businesses often deliberately misspell). But there are lots of diseases in need of a cure — my advice to the little NPs would be to change “the” to “a” as in, “Mush for a cure.” It would be much harder for Komen to go after that. Overall, even “the cure” is likely vulnerable, but who wants to waste money in court?
No pink ribbons for me.
So they’re the Metallica of nonprofs.
A good idea becomes a cause, then becomes a successful cause, then becomes a business, then can become a disgrace.
I will not renew my donation to Komen until they apologize by being a business instead of a cause.
Jimmy, I think anybody who doesn’t know that research charities are, in fact, businesses is a little naive. Komen gets an “open book” rating from the American Institute of Philanthropy, a charity watchdog organization. That means the organization makes its financial statements and annual reports readily available. Komen’s annual report for 2008-2009 is on its Web site.
While its Media Center makes no mention of the lawsuits Grant reports on above, I think Komen could argue fairly that protecting its branding is essential to its fundraising efforts; according to its latest annual report 84 percent of its proceeds goes directly to research, education, screening and treatment. Other organizations could use Komen’s brand to raise funds that might not benefit “the cure” at the same rate.
On the other hand, I have very mixed feelings about Komen and other research-oriented charities, and I do not donate to Komen–to the disappointment of my many students who sponsor campus Race for the Cures–because I would rather support local funds that provide screening and treatment to those who are struggling to get diagnosis and to pay for treatment right now.
For those interested in more info about Komen, read on:
According to its latest annual report, Komen puts 22 cents on every dollar into screening and treatment (which appears to include clinical trials, which I’d consider research rather than treatment). The lion’s share of its revenue–62 percent–goes toward education and research.
http://ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/Content/AboutUs/Financial/new-2008-2009AnnualReport-final.pdf
According to Johns Hopkins (2007), eight weeks of chemo for a breast cancer patient can cost up to $30,000. That doesn’t include administration of the drug, hospital stays, doctor bills, radiation, or lab tests.
http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com/alerts/prescription_drugs/JohnsHopkinsPrescriptionsDrugsHealthAlert_1053-1.html
In my view, organizations like Komen help fund research–good–but don’t do enough to help those who need them afford the shiny new meds research yields–bad. In my view, the chief beneficiaries of Komen are those who have good health care insurance or a lot of money to afford expensive new treatments.
Moreover, I dislike the way Komen distributes its screening and treatment funds. According to our local health department, which administers Komen mammogram vouchers, communities receive vouchers based on how much money it has raised for Komen. So communities are “rewarded” for helping Komen raise funds. Whether there are considerations in the way diagnostic and treatment funds are distributed through Komen–i.e., to try to reach those in most need–I could not find on its Web site.
My objection (besides the public relations disaster this could be for them) is I don’t think they use “for the cure” the way they are accusing others of using it. “Doughnuts for the cure” doesn’t make me think “Komen”. Komen is a distinctive enough name, and her story is central enough to their identity, that the only way to get me to think “Komen” is to say “Komen.” Do they in fact run events where “for the cure” is how they brand themselves (that is, “Marathon for the Cure,” for example, rather than “Susan G. Komen Marathon for the Cure”)?
Jean, those are all good points, but I add one nuance and would also say, that I find the reward system to be appalling — the pockets of the world that are least able to take off time to engage in charity runs and what not are usually those places where people are working two jobs without insurance. Of course, I don’t know how finely they make these determinations — by zip code (really appalling) or by metropolitan area (not quite as bad).
As to spending on education — on this point one must be very careful because lots of organizations consider part of the cost of the mailings they do to be an expense for education, so long as they include some information about the disease in the mailing. This tends to make them look better than they really are in terms of the percentage of dollars spent on substantial non-fund raising activities. No idea about Komen, and basically agree with everything your wrote.
Barbara, I don’t want to pick on Komen, but I have a special interest in this group because so many student organizations participate in Race for the Cure. Not surprising. Komen provides lots of assistance for its fundraising partners, and the largest cohort of women with breast cancer is middle-aged–the age of most students’ mothers. In fact, many of my students refer to breast cancer as a “mommy killer.”
Having a mother with breast cancer often increases a daughter’s chances of getting it, and that adds a lot of urgency and emotion to these campus events, particularly the “survivor’s lap” during which those who have or have had breast cancer–many relatives of the student organizers–are greeted with cheers and tears.
It’s all very moving, of course. Those in the “survivor lap” are usually wearing lots of pink Komen shirts, caps, buttons, etc. But the subliminal message is “Komen saved all of these women.”
I don’t discourage people from donating to Komen or any other research charity. But I urge people to make informed decisions about how their dollar is divvied up.
It’s funny that their lawyer would cite concerns about “where people’s money is going” as a reason for all this litigiousness, because knowing that this is how they’re spending their money makes me much less inclined to donate.
Very sad. Now charities are supposed to hire lawyers to figure out if a name is copyrighted before holding charitable events. Ugh and yuck.
I can understand businesses to a degree. For example there was a fitness club that opened in the city that called itself “McFit” because it was open 24 hours. They had to change the name because McDonalds objected. I can understand that argument better since it is pretty obvious that the prefix “Mc” before a name is an obvious allusion to the marketing success of McDonalds.
But I do not think that the same arguement could credibly be extended to the term “Cure” as in “Run for cure for cancer (or AIDS, or Diabetes, etc). But who can afford to litigate that issue?
McFit? McDonalds did them a favor!
Jim:
No kidding.
But hey you’d be surpirsed at the market tha exists for products like “Great Abs in 10 minutes a day” and similar modern day snake oils like “fast acting pills to rev up your metabolism” not to mention every quick fix technological gizmo intended to be a quick fixes.
Jean said: “I dislike the way Komen distributes its screening and treatment funds. According to our local health department, which administers Komen mammogram vouchers, communities receive vouchers based on how much money it has raised for Komen. So communities are “rewarded” for helping Komen raise funds.”
Maybe all “charities” do the same thing, but I find this to be a disreputable business practice.
I guess as Catholics we have more than enough personal experience in how charity can take on the trappings of business when big bux speak to our church.
At one time there was a fast food chain in Israel called McDavid’s. Of course Mickey D went after it, but didn’t win on that one.