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

191–200 of 283 posts

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

#191

Post by bbarn »

Trader Joe's is a masterclass example in branding.

The only reason anyone's surprised or outrage is that the store feels like a small, homey, good natured place full of organic this and that that's lower priced than you'd expect. That might have been true, 40 years ago. For a store that had the same name, but was a different entity entirely.

Trader Joe's now is just a giant marketing and packaging front for 70 billion dollar a year Aldi, a multinational chain. It's a corporation. None of this behavior surprises me at all.

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

#192

Post by FireBeyond »

ams6110 wrote: post #164
FireBeyond wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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).

You have the right to decide who you will sell to, entirely. Not entirely, see recent cases of bakers who didn't want to sell cakes for gay weddings.

True, "within the realm of current (anti-) discrimination law".

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

#194

Post by chaostheory »

ksenzee wrote: post #18
chaostheory wrote: post #6

Is 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.

I feel that I've lived so long in the Bay Area now that I'm starting to take nice things for granted. While I wouldn't drive to another state for it, I'll drop by Trader Joe's today and be thankful =)

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

#195

Post by hinfaits »

mthoms wrote: post #92
hinfaits wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy clearly tried to position himself as a pseudo-Trader Joe's though. He called it Pirate Joes and only sold products from Trader Joe's. It seems like everyone thought of it as a kind of Trader Joe's. Even though copyright infringement might not have been his intent, intent doesn't matter. That said, this does look like egregious legal bullying even if the case holds water. IANAL

> It seems like everyone thought of it as a kind of Trader Joe's. FWIW, I live 4 blocks from Pirate Joes and can tell you that no-one thought of it "as a kind of Trader Joe's". Okay, maybe there are a few uninformed people but it's still a very long way from "everyone".

What did you think of it as? In my mind, this store is in no way associated with Trader Joe's, but sells exclusively Trader Joe's products (I've only been in it once); that made it into a kind of Trader Joe's.

I think this debate is more about how one can define "kind of Trader Joe's" than about how one associated it with the company.

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

#196

Post by TeMPOraL »

will_brown wrote: post #121
_red wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't sell something you own, then you don't own it. Being free to dispose of property how you see fit has been a foundation of common law for a few centuries.

In that case you don't own your prescription medication. Reselling alcohol is another legal gray area, but absolutely prohibited to sell to minors, so not being able to dispose of your property how you see fit I guess you don't own your alcohol either.

You're trying to argue against general rule by pointing out things that have been explicitly, purposefully excluded from that general rule. That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol and prescription drugs have explicit sale/resale restrictions in the law.

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

#198

Post by TeMPOraL »

analog31 wrote: post #178
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.

That might on how the source you read counted "entrepreneurs".

In Poland, where I live, probably every other adult is an "entrepreneur" these days - people start one-man companies because employers all across the board are pushing people away from normal job contracts towards fake, on-paper B2B relationships. If you visit a grocery store in Poland, then while regular clerks are most likely normal employees, there's a good chance that the shift manager is an "entrepreneur".

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

#199

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

will_brown wrote: post #78
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.

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…

First sale doctrine also applies to trademarked goods. Here's a good example of a similar case examining how first sale doctrine applies to trademarks: http://www.theiplawblog.com/2009/12/articles/trademark-law/w...

Definitely seems like a gray area, but the deciding factor appears to be how likely a customer is to confuse the reseller with the original manufacturer. Given the name of the store was "Pirate Joe's", and they in fact played up the idea that they were an unauthorized reseller, it seems like that confusion would be highly unlikely.

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

#200

Post by buildbot »

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…

I'm not sure how anyone could construe that (P)Irate Joe's in their most recent location looked like a real Trader Joe's. It basically consisted of two walls of shelves and one employee at the register compared to a large market.
Post reply on HN