zlacker

IANAL, but if they don't actively protect their ownership they risk it legally becoming a generic symbol that anyone can use and which they have no control over. If that happens then it completely undermines its purpose and significance in disaster or humanitarian situations.

>>jamest+(OP)
It's not the same legally as an ordinary trademark, so I don't think that's their exact motivation. I think the idea is that they want everyone to know about believe that the emblem is only used for Red Cross activities and therefore that it's bad, and even a war crime, to attack those displaying it in a conflict environment. If people have seen it coming up in other contexts, that intuition or association might be weakened.

>>schoen+C
This argument makes the most sense to me, thank you