Is Trader Joe's that much better than anything else Canada has to offer?
Someone hasn't had Joe-Joe's.
Or that frozen orange chicken. Damn that stuff is good.
Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down
11–20 of 283 posts
Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down
#12I live in Bellingham, WA, which has (I think) the closes TJ's to Vancouver. The parking lot is already about 50% British Columbia plates, and maybe now it'll be even more. I certainly welcome more friendly neighbors shopping in town, but it's a bummer they have to shut down.
A previous article on Pirate Joe's (http://www.piratejoes.ca/legalandpress/2016/1/16/how-why, also a great read) mentions that indeed Bellingham has the closest Trader Joe's to Vancouver.
Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down
#13Is Trader Joe's that much better than anything else Canada has to offer?
It's clearly better than much of what America has to offer, given that many consumers in the US choose to shop there.
Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down
#14There's protecting your brand, and then there's whatever the heck it is Trader Joe's did here, which seems senseless and malevolent.
Aldi Nord (owner of TJ) has done such an incredibly poor job of expanding the Trader Joe's brand outside of the USA. For example, all you get in their German stores are some random crappy products with the TJ label. It makes so little sense to go after this tiny company when you're not even competing in Canada. Which they probably should! I'm sure there's demand in cities like Toronto for the actual unique products t…
A previous article on Pirate Joe's (http://www.piratejoes.ca/legalandpress/2016/1/16/how-why) mentions that Michael Hallatt, the guy behind Pirate Joe's, said he'd close up shop if the real Trader Joe's ever moved into Canada.
Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down
#15Gotta love capitalism, eh? Just like votes, more money = more protection. This certainly wasn't a trademark issue. Trader vs Pirate. There was no question this store wasn't run by Trader Joes/Aldi North. They were buying in bulk to stock a store where they couldn't normally get the goods. Reselling should be 100% A-OK. Any trademarks go along with the products. And as far as I would guess, the grocer certainly wasn't…
> Just like votes, more money = more protection. That's what I find strange with the often-seen "well, just vote with your wallet" argument when a company screws up; it's almost literally the definition of an oligarchy (IE, more money = more decision power).
It's the similar power arrangement when an employee has legitimate grievances with their employer. Individually, they are a speck. Nothing. They can be gotten rid of like the chattel they are.
However, when Unions show up, they are the equal and opposing force that keeps a company in check with regards to their employees. Some have issues with Unions, as some of them are significantly corrupt. But by and large, unions are the equal and opposite force.
What protects small companies from large companies? In reality, nothing. That's what allows fake-patent shakedowns like the "SSL Patent", or others. And that's by exploiting protections in law... But what happens when one side has *10000 the resources? You capitulate and go bankrupt due to legal fees, legal harassment, and a continual defense against a legal monied attack.
In the end, there's fuck-all you can do. Well, other than whatever the monied plantiff wants.
Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down
#16I don't understand with what right trader Joe's can prohibit somebody from reselling their products. If he clearly states where he bought them from, and that he is not affiliated, and doesn't misuse their trademarks (impersonate them), it should be absolutely legal. A side remark, people often say how great the US / north America is for entrepreneurs, compared to (continental) Europe where there is a lot of red tape…
Yeah, I don't really understand the difference between Pirate Joe's and every snack stand that resells candy and soda they bought from somewhere else like Costco.
Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down
#17I'm not clear on how US courts were allowed to hear a case about events in Canada. Is that a thing?
A court said that since the "harm" (devaluing the trademark) happened in America, the case could move ahead. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/court-infringement-law...
Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down
#18Is Trader Joe's that much better than anything else Canada has to offer?
Have you not shopped at a Trader Joe's? It's unique.
Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down
#19Gotta love capitalism, eh? Just like votes, more money = more protection. This certainly wasn't a trademark issue. Trader vs Pirate. There was no question this store wasn't run by Trader Joes/Aldi North. They were buying in bulk to stock a store where they couldn't normally get the goods. Reselling should be 100% A-OK. Any trademarks go along with the products. And as far as I would guess, the grocer certainly wasn't…
Usually it doesn't work to buy products at full retail price and resell them at a higher retail price. I guess the "in Canada" part is how it worked out for him?
Trader Joe's probably wants to protect their brand in hopes of a future Canadian expansion.
Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down
#20Gotta love capitalism, eh? Just like votes, more money = more protection. This certainly wasn't a trademark issue. Trader vs Pirate. There was no question this store wasn't run by Trader Joes/Aldi North. They were buying in bulk to stock a store where they couldn't normally get the goods. Reselling should be 100% A-OK. Any trademarks go along with the products. And as far as I would guess, the grocer certainly wasn't…
> Just like votes, more money = more protection. That's what I find strange with the often-seen "well, just vote with your wallet" argument when a company screws up; it's almost literally the definition of an oligarchy (IE, more money = more decision power).
To be fair, that phrase usually applies to everyday consumer purchases, not a firm using large amounts of money to apply legal pressure to another firm. The normal usage of the phrase is fairly reasonable.