zlacker

I think this quotation best summarizes the article

"When someone misuses the red cross,(the video game industry being just one of many), we seek their cooperation in ending the unauthorized use"

The red cross is a protect trademark so this seems reasonable.

>>dfdz+(OP)
Right, but they could make that point without invoking the deaths, so presumably they're engaging in some kind of persuasion about why it's important to respect their trademark.

>>dfdz+(OP)
There needs to be some minimum complexity for a trademark. A cross is one of the most common human symbols. It's ridiculous to attempt to police the world for the use of it in a certain color.

I'd like to see how much they spend on this, and will reconsider donating to the red cross in the future if they continue this foolhardy errand.

>>throwa+K3
Presumably because persuasion is apparently necessary, as evidenced by some folk arguing against some of their reasoning or statements regarding the issue.

>>blooal+Fe
> Presumably because persuasion is apparently necessary, as evidenced by some folk arguing against some of their reasoning or statements regarding the issue.

Fine, so what's the persuasion in this case? Is it really "misuse of trademark in fiction media contributed to these killings of Red Cross personnel"? Because that's a pretty fantastic claim that requires evidence if you are to persuade someone.

>>aetern+4e
Donating to the red cross is downright evil already. This is the same organization which, in the US at least, will not take blood from gay cis men who sleep with men, even though it's happy to take blood from straight trans women who sleep with men — biologically identical acts, with the only difference being sexual orientation.

>>aetern+4e
> There needs to be some minimum complexity for a trademark. A cross is one of the most common human symbols.

The Red Cross symbol is sui generis, it is not a (normal) trademark.

Use of the symbols in peace time is prohibited under Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention (except as allowed under that article).

>It's ridiculous to attempt to police the world for the use of it in a certain color.

It's protected because it protects medics, the wounded and other vulnerable non-combatants in war. It's a vital humanitarian tool.

>>throwa+dg
I believe they're trying to convince folk that unapproved (over)use of their trademark "weakens the brand" in the minds of individuals enough that they worry it could lead to that symbol not affording the protection on the battlefield that it has traditionally enjoyed in the past, and therefore could lead to deaths which might have been avoided.