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

171–180 of 283 posts

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

#171

Post by arprocter »

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…

>the one near me has poor selections of most basic grocery items with weak produce

Same here - the last time I went they didn't have lettuce.

I haven't been back.

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

#172

Post by glonq »

heynk wrote: post #2

I 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.

That's the one I shop at. Thanks for tolerating so many canucks in your city! Sorry about bogarting all the milk.

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

#173

Post by lr4444lr »

afuchs wrote: post #166
lr4444lr wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His bulk shopping trips got the attention of Trader Joe’s, and in 2013, the company filed a lawsuit against Mr. Hallatt for trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin and false advertising. What's so hard to understand? The guy was using a knock-off name on a well-known brand without permission to sell their same products. Also, food is one of those specially regulated items that distribu…

It is called the Grey Market. It isn't a legal designation. The first sale doctrine still applies to bulk purchases. If a seller wants to, they can refuse to sell to anyone that they think will latter resell their product. You can go into a store right now, buy something at full retail price, and list it on eBay. I doubt you would make any money, unless, like Pirate Joe's, you are selling to a market that is unable t…

No, First Sale Doctrine is something else. This guy was not selling copies. There's something in the law pertinent to the fact that this guy bought at a retail location, which causes TJ's loss on their commercial real estate which presumably they invest in to reach the consumer public with quantities said consuming public would typically purchase. Stores can put limits on units per customer of course, but there's recourse too if the individual buys with the hidden intent of reselling. Because this guy is a de facto distributor, he needs to contract with his wholesaler to get permission to buy the offerings at a retail location for that purpose. I just can't for the life of me remember the law or terminology around it. Again, IANAL, but there is some recourse around this kind of action.

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

#175

Post by sailfast »

Assuming that taking care of customs duties and other food quality issues legally would not be that expensive, all I'm seeing is missed revenue.

If the person wants to order 10,000 palettes of cookies at retail price, why wouldn't you sell the cookies to the person? He's not stealing from the back of the store, he's paying full price. I'm very confused why Trader Joe's would not have created a direct connection with the guy.

This reminds me of major services cutting off API access because they thought they could do it better in-house. Just HIRE the person doing your own service better in a different way.

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

#176

Post by SilasX »

jandrese wrote: post #75
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…

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…

Wow, really. If I want to sell my (near worthless) right to commercially resell CaptainMuon products, then there's some jurist out there who decided I can just legally flout the terms of such an agreement, so no one makes them?

What's the thinking there? Is it just shock at alienating such a right, or is it part of some actual, coherent worldmodel that satisfies difficult desiderata?

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

#177

Post by ethbro »

ppereira wrote: post #81
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…

You have framed this question in terms of your freedom to contract in order to restrict distribution. Although many think contractual freedom is paramount, that is not necessarily so. It may be bounded by other more basic legal principles. In your chips example, it may be bounded by property and competition law. In property law, there is the concept of a restraint on alienation. In competition/anti-trust law, there i…

I see the circumscription of absolute property rights (e.g. right to limit redistribution) as an implicit admission that monopolies or cartels form even in well-functioning free markets.

If not, customers would be free to avoid onerous terms by choosing a competitor, thus disincentivizing their use in the market. Instead in our current world, I'm sure we can all think of companies who could easily impose the most draconian TOS restrictions & limitations on rights-after-purchase and yet would still sell approximately the same amount of product.

Ergo, we limit these rights by law.

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

#178

Post by analog31 »

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…

Contrary to popular belief, I've read that there are actually more entrepreneurs per capita in Europe than in the US.

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

#179

Post by PatentTroll »

chx wrote: post #151
Chaebixi wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 e…

Oh yeah it would. TJ's has a very defined, distinct, and recognizable 'feel' to its stores which are a part of their brand. If I started a grocery store called Merchant Mike's and all the employees wore Hawaiian shirts, you could bet that TJ would assert its trade dress.

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

#180

Post by lsiebert »

I am not a lawyer, so I don't know that I am qualified to comment on the legal issues.

I can say that this does make me upset at Trader Joe's, and I will be considering where else I can spend my money.

They could have worked with this guy, eventually set up a Trader Joe's in Canada, and then offered to let this guy run it. That would have been better for their brand, in my view.

I care about what companies do. Costco hires employees and treats them well. It pays above average, and it hires and keeps on people with disabilities and injuries, even if they can't do everything someone else can do. It makes me feel good to shop there. And it's employees are loyal, hard working, happy and friendly, and they have less pilferage then other stores.

This idea that a company has a duty to be a dick is silly. Companies should care about their brand, and about being a good corporate citizen.

Post reply on HN