Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 283 posts

Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down

#71

Post by wcummings »

tgb wrote: post #64
chaostheory wrote: post #6

Is Trader Joe's that much better than anything else Canada has to offer?

I think Trader Joe's is mostly about having different things, not necessarily better. At least the one near me has poor selections of most basic grocery items with weak produce and missing the less common basic items if you want to cook yourself (corn meal for example). Instead, it has a large selection of TJ-branded frozen and semi-prepared food items that aren't available elsewhere as well as snacks. I'm rather con…

>Trader Joes' take up precious grocery store space in urban areas

At least they have tiny parking lots [1]

[1] https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2016/03/trader-joes-parkin...

Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down

#72

Post by metaphorm »

will_brown wrote: post #45
captainmuon wrote: post #10

I 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…

A lot of people are using the "I bought chips at Costco and resold them at a concession stand example". This is at least a little different. Say you owned Captainmuon Grocery and only sold private label Captainmuon Chips. Although demand is so high you could distribute your Chips to other groceries and retailers, you see greater value in driving traffic to your store through the exclusive distribution. Don't you have…

but you're talking about a hypothetical. the relevant question is has TraderJoes made that contract with their customers or not? The store does not have a membership program (like some retailers do), it is open to the general public for shopping.

Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down

#73

Post by FireBeyond »

will_brown wrote: post #45
captainmuon wrote: post #10

I 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…

A lot of people are using the "I bought chips at Costco and resold them at a concession stand example". This is at least a little different. Say you owned Captainmuon Grocery and only sold private label Captainmuon Chips. Although demand is so high you could distribute your Chips to other groceries and retailers, you see greater value in driving traffic to your store through the exclusive distribution. Don't you have…

"Don't you have a legal right to create exclusive distribution"

Fairly clearly, under law, no. Well, kinda: You have the right to decide who you will sell to, entirely.

You have no right to prevent things under the first sale doctrine.

(Some of the attempts to limit this include printing on packaging 'not for resale' as an attempt to EULA the physical product).

Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down

#74

Post by guelo »

Paul-ish wrote: post #62
guelo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the seller does not have any of those rights. It's called the first-sale doctrine.

First-sale doctrine applies to copyrighted works. Deed restrictions are an example where someone can sell property with conditions on its use.

First-sale doctrine also applies to trademarks which is what would be at issue here. The doctrine allows reselling of trademarked products.

Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down

#75

Post by jandrese »

will_brown wrote: post #45
captainmuon wrote: post #10

I 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…

A lot of people are using the "I bought chips at Costco and resold them at a concession stand example". This is at least a little different. Say you owned Captainmuon Grocery and only sold private label Captainmuon Chips. Although demand is so high you could distribute your Chips to other groceries and retailers, you see greater value in driving traffic to your store through the exclusive distribution. Don't you have…

Nope. You don't have any of those legal rights.

The courts agreed, but Trader Joes had bigger pockets and was able to kill Pirate Joes with just legal fees alone. They didn't have to win, they just had to keep him in court until he was broke. This is a pretty common tactic when big corporations are in lawsuits with individuals. Or in the case of healthcare suits they just wait until the plaintiff is dead of whatever condition they're suing over.

Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down

#76

Post by rfdub »

Trader Joes doesn't have a goddamn peg-leg to stand on in this dispute. If Trader Joes had made any indication whatsoever they were seeking to satisfy the clearly substantial demand for their products in Vancouver I might better be able to see their side of the story, but they have done absolutely nothing to expand into what would be ludicrously lucrative market. I know multiple people who have sent bloody hand-written letters to Trader Joes begging them to open a store in Vancouver and yet they would rather spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting a local small-business owner than satisfy the demand themselves. Regardless of the legality of this situation Trader Joes has not won the moral high ground.

Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down

#77

Post by unethical_ban »

goodcanadian wrote: post #57
chaostheory wrote: post #6

Is Trader Joe's that much better than anything else Canada has to offer?

Trader Joe's is different from other stores, not necessarily better or worse. When I lived in California, we did a lot of shopping at Trader Joe's, but you couldn't really get all of your groceries there. Conversely, you could not get equivalents to a lot of Trader Joe's products at other stores. Canada has grocery stores that are 100% equivalent to regular grocery stores in the U.S., but it has nothing that is reall…

TJ's doesn't carry garbage bags. I remember that being pretty frustrating, since it's one of those things most grocery stores have had for decades.

Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down

#78

Post by will_brown »

guelo wrote: post #54
will_brown wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people are using the "I bought chips at Costco and resold them at a concession stand example". This is at least a little different. Say you owned Captainmuon Grocery and only sold private label Captainmuon Chips. Although demand is so high you could distribute your Chips to other groceries and retailers, you see greater value in driving traffic to your store through the exclusive distribution. Don't you have…

No, the seller does not have any of those rights. It's called the first-sale doctrine.

Just so we are on the same page first-sale doctrine applies to works with copyright (i.e. You buy my book you have a right to resell or display it) it does not apply to consumable goods/food stuffs. Almost any reasonable person can understand practical limits of resale rights: think reselling your prescription opiates claiming first-sale doctrine.

And no just because Trader Joe's products have TJ trademarks does not mean they are covered by first-sale doctrine, they are still food stuffs. Trademark under first sale-doctrine is more applicable to reselling a professional sports jersey containing the trademark logo/colors of the team.

Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down

#79

Post by jandrese »

FireBeyond wrote: post #73
will_brown wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people are using the "I bought chips at Costco and resold them at a concession stand example". This is at least a little different. Say you owned Captainmuon Grocery and only sold private label Captainmuon Chips. Although demand is so high you could distribute your Chips to other groceries and retailers, you see greater value in driving traffic to your store through the exclusive distribution. Don't you have…

"Don't you have a legal right to create exclusive distribution" Fairly clearly, under law, no. Well, kinda: You have the right to decide who you will sell to, entirely. You have no right to prevent things under the first sale doctrine. (Some of the attempts to limit this include printing on packaging 'not for resale' as an attempt to EULA the physical product).

IIRC the "not for resale" markings are only relevant if the package is missing mandatory information like the nutrition label. In practice it only works to stop people who buy a bulk bag of a product and then break it apart and try to resell the individual items.

Re: Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down

#80

Post by metaphorm »

ianai wrote: post #34
kefka wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets be serious here. This is a standard "I'm wrong, but I have more money so Ill exhaust your resources to get what I want." There's no trademark devaluation. There's no copyright infringement. There's no patent infringement. This is straight up First Sale Doctrine stuff. And even if there was the above 3, SCOUTS ruled those rights are exhausted on sale recently. This is directly an issue of "More Money = Better Leg…

There ought to be a law against that. Better, an amendment. No idea on the verbiage though.

IANAL but my impression is the provision in legal due process for expediency is relevant only to the criminal justice system. This example makes for a very good argument that it ought to also apply to the civil justice system. The main mechanism that is used for this kind of legal action is the cost of retaining a law firm for extended periods of time. If the time was reduced the costs would be reduced also. That would partially equalize access to legal representation in civil disputes.
Post reply on HN