Since its inception in 1982, Komen has invested nearly $2 billion for breast cancer research, education, advocacy, health services and social support programs in the U.S., and through partnerships in more than 50 countries. Today, Komen has more than 100,000 volunteers working in a network of 124 affiliates worldwide. Yeah, they’re big. 

Most recently, however, the do-good organization has been criticized for their lesser-known mission of rather aggressively identifying and filing legal trademark oppositions against other charities and events that use any variation of “for the cure” in their names, including various Mom and Pop charities like Fans for the Cure, Surfing for a Cure, Critters for the Cure, and Cupcakes for a Cure. 

According to The Huffington Post, these small, under-funded organizations are being contacted by Komen to cease their use of pink and the phrase “for the cure”, stating they own them. Oh boy. 

Now everyone has their knickers in a bunch because they believe that the money and time spent on legally defending each other’s brands should go to the actual cure of breast cancer. They also believe that many of these charities in question are all working towards “the cure” so what's the harm in using the same colors or phrase if all efforts are going towards the greater good?

It's a question of trademark infringement. Or, as others might say, trademark abuse. 

Susan G. Komen for the Cure is a business, which many people fail to realize. And businesses, even nonprofits, have overhead and other operational costs, including legal and marketing, that don’t go directly to funding the cure. Shouldn’t they have the right to protect their brand in order to continue all the good they are doing at the scale they are doing it?