Social Innovations
Suing for the Cure?
You’ve heard of the race for the cure. But what about kayaks for the cure, barks for the cure, blondes for the cure or kites for the cure? Recently, these and other charities have sprung up, making use of the popular phrase “for the cure” in breast cancer fundraising efforts. And while imitation is thought to be the sincerest form of flattery, leading breast cancer charity Susan G. Komen For the Cure thinks otherwise. Leaders at Komen, the nonprofit that made “for the cure” a staple in fundraising vernacular, are none too happy with other charity groups capitalizing on what they claim is their phrase... (continue reading his blog post)
You’ve heard of the race for the cure. But what about kayaks for the cure, barks for the cure, blondes for the cure or kites for the cure? Recently, these and other charities have sprung up, making use of the popular phrase “for the cure” in breast cancer fundraising efforts. And while imitation is thought to be the sincerest form of flattery, leading breast cancer charity Susan G. Komen For the Cure thinks otherwise.
Leaders at Komen, the nonprofit that made “for the cure” a staple in fundraising vernacular, are none too happy with other charity groups capitalizing on what they claim is their phrase. In addition, they are warning cancer charities to stay away from using any pink in marketing efforts. To drive their point home, they recently announced a lawsuit to protect their marketing phrase and color use.
Amidst this legal battle, an interesting question arises: Is it ethical for a nonprofit to sue another nonprofit over a branding issue?
Some would say no, absolutely not. Komen is in the wrong because the issue here is mission, not money. Therefore, Komen should recognize and respect the fact that these kayakers, blondes, and other “for the cure” groups are all on the same team in the universal fight against breast cancer. After all, finding a cure is really what’s at the heart of all of these legal and branding issues, right?
Right. But to me, Komen’s legal pursuits make perfect sense—and actually do have the mission at heart. For-profit companies engage in trademark battles to protect their brands all the time. But when a nonprofit does it, it risks alienating the public it’s trying to serve. Not fair, I say. Komen is merely operating as a responsible financial entity—just as a business would—in an attempt to positively impact their bottom line. Which, in this case, is finding a cure.
Jonathan Blum, Komen’s general counsel, argued in a recent Wall Street Journal article, “We see it as responsible stewardship of our donor’s funds.” Makes sense. Having proved itself as a socially and financially responsible organization since its inception in 1982, Komen aims to ensure proper financial management of donations for the cure—that is, for the universal fight against breast cancer. Perhaps unspoken in these legal motions is the notion that these younger, less experienced organizations, while well-intentioned, might not be able to deliver the same kinds of financial returns to the cause as Komen, their fundraising elder.
Furthermore, logistically speaking, if confusion among names might cause a sizable donation intended for Komen to land on another charity’s books, then who can blame Komen for being so adamant about the trademark?
Komen is being seen as a bully. But in my opinion, they are just being business-minded. A perfectly fine quality; one that more nonprofits should embrace.
Loreal Lynch joined the Stanford Social Innovation Review in 2007. She manages the SSIR website, blog, and social media outlets. She lives in San Francisco and received a Bachelor’s degree in Spanish from Tufts University.
Useful knowledge for the social sector coming from academic researchers is severely limited.
Big business can join forces with social enterprises to support India’s inclusive growth.
We must invest in the financial literacy of social entrepreneurs and in the social literacy of investors.
Reflections on a discussion about the capacity for continuous innovation in social sector organizations.
A follow up to the recent post "Some Questions About Udacity."
From the Field Series: A living case study of Makmende, which provides women in Nairobi with coordinated walking groups.
Exploring open spaces, parks, gardens, and trails as tools for social impact.
Universities are the missing link in entrepreneurship.
COMMENTS
BY John R. Sedivy
ON August 11, 2010 07:01 PM
This is a tough one. My first knee-jerk reaction is to say that a non-profit should not sue over a potential trademark infringement, which is in many cases kind of a gray area. However, you make some great points, the strongest of which is the potential confusion factor. In addition to a potential donation inadvertently going astray, what about an instance where one of the offshoots mishandles funds? This could cause great harm to a charity at no fault of their own.
BY Amy Lyman
ON August 12, 2010 02:06 PM
It’s not a question of being business minded as much as one of maintaining the integrity of their message. This is important regardless the financial status of the enterprise. I support the Komen charity’s efforts to protect their tag line. it’s tied up with their mission and the quality of their efforts. If another non-profit use the same tag line then that could confuse people’s connection to the Komen charity and their work. And there is a huge quality control issue here. The Komen folks will have no control over the quality of the work presented by any other ‘for the cure’ organization. The one question that I do think needs to be discussed is whether or not the lawsuit should be organized to generate any ‘profit’ or should be aimed at recovering costs and clearly identifiable damages. I’d go for the latter - that would mean a clear lawsuit on the issue of copying someone’s brand message, with the only financial goal being to cover the costs of the suit and any damages that can be clearly identified.
BY Jeremy Black
ON August 12, 2010 03:51 PM
But they just changed the name to “for the cure” in 2007, and many of these other organizations were around previously. Some of these organizations were aware that The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, as it was known until 2007, were using “for the cure” for some of their events. I recall how in the nineties when they began to use the pink ribbon how they were mocked for usurping the AIDS Awareness red ribbon and the long-established yellow ribbon used for the support of troops; but that didn’t stop them from doing so. Now they’re trying to own “pink”? They came along at a time when other organizations were using the color pink for other causes, and they just pushed all that aside. They’re trying to “protect” a color used widely by many other organizations and claim it as their own, and they’ve purposely moved in on the name “for the cure” in order to corner the market on that. The only reason the other organizations are succumbing to their demands is because of how much (donated) money Komen seems willing to throw at these other, smaller, worthy organzations (some of whom were here first). If they were fighting to protect the name ” Susan G. Koman Breast Cancer Foundation, then this would make sense. (And yes, I know they were using “for the cure” for specific events prior to 2007, but they were not the only ones doing so.)
BY Aniket D.
ON August 13, 2010 04:18 PM
Suing other organizations is one thing - but doesnt the claim seem frivolous. Its an English phrase after all. Can someone claim exclusive rights to an English phrase? Would the lawsuit stand good ground in a court of law?
BY John R. Sedivy
ON August 13, 2010 05:10 PM
I am a regular reader of a branding blog from the author of BrandSimple and BrandDigital, both excellent branding books. Recently I happened upon an article which seemed relevant to this topic and thought I would share it here: http://www.brandsimple.com/blog/2009/10/26/in-the-pink-is-an-understatement-for-this-branding-story/
I thought it was interesting that a branding expert associated the color pink with breast cancer awareness which I believe adds more credence to this article and how a seemingly standard color or phrase can have a powerful impact.
BY Andy
ON October 4, 2010 05:19 PM
Good point, to a certain degree. The big differentiating factor is that all funds for Susan G. Komen are DONATIONS, compared to the revenue generated by a for-profit business through the sale of goods or services. The thought that my donation will be used to pay a lawyer to fight another not-for-profit will cause me (and many others) to think twice about whether SGK is the right organization to deserve my hard earned money.
BY Gao
ON January 5, 2011 12:34 AM
I can totally understand a lawsuit to protect a brand name or business name. However, one also have to evaluate the “words” being branded/ Now, you have to understand one thing, for the cure, is not the entire name for Komen. It is more like an add on, a description of what they do.
“For the Cure” is a common phrase and I believe that can’t be trademarked. Also, for the cure is not exclusively tied to breast cancer, there are many diseases out there that research “for a cure” is needed in order to find a CURE!
I see this as ridiculous. Komen is very stupid in doing this. Their reasoning is that people get confused when they write checks and donate to charity and they may donate to some other charity with “for the cure” in their name by mistake. Ok, well guess what? Spending a million plus in this legal battle and acting like a bully will get people to NOT DONATE to you.
Also, has anyone looked at their finances? Heck, they spend tens of millions on salaries, and only 17% on research! Donate to the NSF or something and earmark it for breast cancer research
BY Dean
ON January 24, 2011 09:32 PM
Rather than suing these smaller foundations, why not make them a part of the larger goal and embrace their efforts? Maybe they are “young” and not fully aware of the impact they can make, but with guidance I think the the Susan G. Komen foundation can make them into strong local partners. I would rather support Minnesota’s “Mush for the Cure”. Might not be local in the long run, but it feels better to support a “home” team.
BY Dustin
ON January 24, 2011 09:36 PM
I couldn’t disagree more with the sentiment of this blog.
Fact is, this isn’t a business. Their revenue is tied to whether or not people see them as a genuine non profit with amicable goals, and any attempt to “beat up the little guy” is taken with a great deal of offense.
There were a number of good alternatives. For example, the Komen foundation could have offered a partnership to these smaller charities, and I doubt they’d have refused, as the Komen foundation undoubtedly has a much more streamlined infrastructure, and they could maximize the impact of donated funds from these charities.
This lawsuit is ill-spirited and will serve only to make the Komen foundation to appear less like a charitable foundation, and more like a corporation.
BY CJ
ON July 16, 2011 04:23 PM
Dear Loreal Lynch,
Nice article on the subject hitting home the key point as to what is the REAL goal and ambition of a group? It shows directly how companies once they gain certain status and size forget, leave their roots or deviate from where and what they started thus turning their company into simply money machines that go bust on averages!
I personally find the logo/statement “3 day cure” very offensive and irritating…No illness these days of any seriousness can be cured in 3 days…Nice gesture and ring to it but hey deny them #3 and what are they? Another bunch of feministas out for a walk on the weekend!...So I consider their 3 day cure logo fraudulent and misleading!
It’s a great cause with many of my female friends participating but when I can’t even use my online local bank without being asked to participate and donate I’d rather turn the damn computer or TV off. The adverts are generally biased for females. Why subject myself to such info and data which gets annoying day after day. Monopolization seems their key to advertising…I say shut them down, they’ve lost my business and attention!
CJ