What's in a Name?
"Treasured Chests" is my most favorite name for a breast cancer support organization. It was developed by Kelly Moore in Minnesota. Running a close second is Keep-a-Breast Foundation in Wisconsin. The latter skyrocketed its visibility with pink bracelets for breast cancer awareness reading "I [heart] boobies" --a big hit in high schools, that has raised brouhaha in some places.
But a much bigger hullabaloo over breast-cancer organization names hit the breast cancer community in recent months, and has now reached the public press as well. It concerns the Susan G. Komen Foundation's effort to control use of the phrase "for the cure" in connection with breast cancer. The organization's own name is Susan G. Komen For the Cure. To connect its name with the thing it is most famous for, foot races to collect money, it has a catchy little running pink ribbon next to its title. The organization has registered trademarks/service marks for at least 265 names, most of which include "for the cure" but some of which include only pink ribbons or the words race or run. Komen has started or threatened law suits against other charitable groups that use "for the cure" or even "cure" in their names.
Many advocates from other breast cancer organizations are up in arms about Komen's recent and widely publicized legal stand against a small group called Mush for the Cure, which tried to raise funds for Komen's rival, the National Breast Cancer Foundation, with dogsled races. (I think that is clever, don't you?) Komen opposed Mush's application for a trademark. Appearing on national network television, the spokesperson for Komen explained that the foundation has built a huge reputation and raised many millions of dollars using "for the cure", and fears having its visibility diluted or its viability eroded when others use it.
Churlish though this may appear, the fact is, trade marking and policing the mark is nothing unusual for not-for-profit organizations. Just like for-profit businesses, they want to develop a recognizable brand that is associated with a product. The product Komen wants to be associated with is curing breast cancer. Since almost everyone wants to do that, it pulls in lots of donations.
None of the protestors have advanced a good legal reason for challenging Komen's insistence that it can and must control use of "for the cure" in relation to disease. Their protests were rather based on the 200-pound gorilla argument: one big organization should not bully or dominate others.
But it seems to me that this is first and foremost a legal issue. So, I asked my friend who is a nationally and internationally prominent trademark and patent attorney whether Komen's position lies within the four corners of the law. My thinking was, if it does, then there's nothing advocates can do about it, but if it doesn't, maybe everyone else in the breast cancer community except Komen should band together to oppose it.
My friend said, yes it does. He sent me an easy-to-understand summary of trademark law, a review of the normal course of events in a challenge to trademarks, and an indication of the costly process that would be associated with attacking Komen's position in the courts or defending against a Komen lawsuit. The grounds against Komen would have to be that "for the cure" is a generic phrase in common usage and therefore not subject to trademark registration. My friend said this argument would almost certainly fail in this instance. And it would cost a bundle to fight one or more of Komen's registrations
But is this all so terrible? Groups may get permission from Komen to use "For the Cure" under certain circumstances. If a group can't or won't meet the Komen requirements to use the phrase, they have other options. Some of those options may in fact be much better. Stop Breast Cancer is the mark of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, of which SHARE is a founding member. That's certainly right on target. Other options are: end breast cancer, fight breast cancer, prevent breast cancer, kill breast cancer, eradicate breast cancer, halt breast cancer, arrest breast cancer, erase breast cancer, banish breast cancer, wipe out breast cancer, smash breast cancer. I'll bet you can come up with even more in this vein.
Komen's fundraising helps smaller groups, too, for many get Komen grants--including SHARE.
Far more important than how much money any organization gets is what it does with the money. Is it supporting evidence-based treatment? Is it supporting evidence-gathering research that includes documentation of side effects? Is it supporting education for patients so that they can make wise decisions about treatments? Is it throwing its weight wholeheartedly behind comparative effectiveness research? All these would be a credit to any name.
Or is it fueling investments in unneeded or unproven medical interventions which help only the drug companies that market them and the doctors that use them without good scientific reason?
On this score, I personally would fault Komen for its stance on routine breast cancer screening starting at the age of 40. This is a top priority for Komen which spends a lot of money promoting and funding early mammograms. Research has not shown that there has been a measurable impact on the proportion of women diagnosed early who actually get cured. Indeed, scientists and physicians have recommended against this except for women at unusually high risk. SHARE, a small but relatively powerful organization, takes the opposite view, and has gained respect in the breast cancer community and in the world at large for doing so. (See New mammography guidelines: Now what do I do? and New screening mammogram guidelines: Another thing to think about).
The phrase "for the cure" is also a little off-target in light of the last 30 years of scientific research. There is no "the" cure known today for breast cancer. Some breast cancers get cured, many do not. There probably is no one single cure for all breast cancers, but rather many different cures for different types. So it may be catchy, it may be a good brand name, but "for the cure" isn't necessarily sending the right message.
No matter what name they operate under, activists can't afford to let their energy be diverted to internecine warfare within the breast cancer community. Competition can lead to better outcomes for people affected by a diagnosis of breast cancer. The only way that can happen is by getting the facts straight, communicating them to people who need to know them, and standing up for research, regulation, and legislation that will help stop breast cancer now. That's where activists should put their efforts.
Posted February 25, 2011.
« Next Post | » Previous Post
— Judy