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

151–160 of 283 posts

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

#151

Post by chx »

Chaebixi wrote: post #118
chx wrote: post #95

Let's review one of the court documents because it has a very important detail. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/26/1... > Defendant Michael Norman Hallatt purchased Trader Joe’s-branded goods in Washington State, transported them to Canada, and resold them there in a store he designed to mimic a Trader Joe’s store . Trader Joe’s sued under the Lanham Act and Washington law. Repeated later: > I…

> he designed to mimic a Trader Joe’s So what? The mimicry occurs in Canada, where Trader Joe's apparently does not operate. I thought the whole point of trademark law was to prevent customer confusion, not to give a party property-like rights to some retail "style." I'm really surprised this is an issue for the US courts at all, and that they didn't refer Trader Joe's to the Canadian court system.

> to some retail "style."

So says Wikipedia:

> Trade dress is a legal term of art that generally refers to characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging (or even the design of a building) that signify the source of the product to consumers.

IANAL but selling Trading Joe's products and those alone in a store that looks like Trading Joe's could at least give rise to a trade dress claim.

As to extraterritoriality, NAFTA applies, trademarks are recognized across the border.

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

#152

Post by kefka »

jandrese wrote: post #88
leggomylibro wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It normalizes the behavior as acceptable. In reality, the aphorism is based on a ridiculous premise that nobody in their right mind should accept; that money is the only thing responsible for dictating what is acceptable behavior.

Uh, that's the entire premise behind the free market. Money decides who is right and who is wrong. The Invisible Hand doesn't have morals.

> Uh, that's the entire premise behind the free market. Money decides who is right and who is wrong. The Invisible Hand doesn't have morals.

Yeah, free market. Like "I have more money, and I dont like your face, so I nuisance sue you until you're bankrupt." free market?

That's not a world I want to be part of, continue, or assist in any way.

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

#153

Post by ouid »

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 of your consumable product?

Vertical integration is not a de facto right of a company, in general, for anti-trust concerns.

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

#154

Post by plink »

learc83 wrote: post #104
jandrese wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It sounded like they weren't actually suing him over selling their products, but over the name "Pirate Joe's" Hey may still have won that one, but it's at least somewhat plausible that consumers might actually be confused by the name.

So, they were claiming exclusivity on the descriptor "pirate"?

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

#155

Post by Steko »

Noos wrote: post #145

Problem is it sounds like he was trying to rely on association to the Trader Joe's brand to make money, kind of a shadow franchise. That opens up the problem of brand dilution, and even the most ethical companies have to be ruthless about that, or they can lose their own brand and all the benefits they worked to build with it. He should have realized the need, and done things like match their product mix with his own…

The first thing I thought of was McDowells in Coming to America even though they weren't reselling McDonald's food and then it turns out that the guy behind Pirate Joes is (was) planning to open a "Big M" fast food restaurant.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pirate-joe-s-...

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

#156

Post by post_break »

jlarocco wrote: post #140
post_break wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I buy something from Pirate Joes that is tainted or recalled and get really sick or die. Who do you sue? I can see Trader Joes thinking about that scenario.

Isn't this exactly what the OP is talking about? Why would you sue anybody in that situation?

I'm legitimately being honest and not condescending but in that case you sue everyone. Trader Joes, Pirate Joes, the owner of Pirate Joes, etc. It's how lawsuits work.

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

#157

Post by post_break »

falsedan wrote: post #144
post_break wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I buy something from Pirate Joes that is tainted or recalled and get really sick or die. Who do you sue? I can see Trader Joes thinking about that scenario.

Same as if you bought a bad soda at a bodega, or Advil that had been adulterated: the manufacturer, not the retailer.

No, you sue everyone. Everyone who has been involved. Truck driver almost killed Tracy Morgan. Did he sue the trucker? No he sued walmart.

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

#159

Post by blacksmith_tb »

tryitnow wrote: post #141

As much as I like to side with the little guy, I think it's pretty fair for an establishment to restrict whom they sell to (as long as it's not based on a protected class like race, gender, orientation, etc). Despite being banned from the store this guy still sought out ways to shop there, so I can't defend him too enthusiastically. Then again it kind of annoys me that TJ's just didn't open a damn store in Canada. An…

But they weren't restricting selling to him (in fact, I am going to guess that the manager of the store he stocked up at was happy to see the artificial lift in sales). He didn't sue them for refusing to sell to him, they sued him for infringing (which he was quite boldly, but in a country they don't actually do business in, so it seems like a stretch).
Post reply on HN