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

231–240 of 283 posts

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

#231

Post by sillysaurus3 »

icebraining wrote: post #228
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's okay to mimic stores, down to riding on their trademark? It's probably best to think of "What if someone cloned my favorite game and called it a slightly different name?" People had big problems with what Zynga was doing.

When they don't exist in the country, yes. Likewise, if my favorite game had georestrictions prevents its sale in some countries, I'd have no problem with Zynga selling clones for those countries.

So make your own game, with your own name. Make your own store with its own name. Don't try to tread on the name of others. It's unethical.

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

#233

Post by [deleted] »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #231
icebraining wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they don't exist in the country, yes. Likewise, if my favorite game had georestrictions prevents its sale in some countries, I'd have no problem with Zynga selling clones for those countries.

So make your own game, with your own name. Make your own store with its own name. Don't try to tread on the name of others. It's unethical.

[deleted]

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

#234

Post by icebraining »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #231
icebraining wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they don't exist in the country, yes. Likewise, if my favorite game had georestrictions prevents its sale in some countries, I'd have no problem with Zynga selling clones for those countries.

So make your own game, with your own name. Make your own store with its own name. Don't try to tread on the name of others. It's unethical.

Claiming that actions are unethical without providing any argument is unethical.

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

#235

Post by rayiner »

chii wrote: post #223
rayiner wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless, it's wrong to say, as the grandparent poster did, that the courts agreed with Pirate Joes. Also, saying that TJs "bullied" him assumes that he was not in fact trading on the TJs brand. Look at his store sign: http://www.cknw.com/2017/06/08/pirate-joes-in-vancouver-clos... . Even the font he uses is very similar. He wasn't just reselling TJs products. He was capitalizing on the TJs brand to resell products…

so you're saying that Pirate Joe is violation of trademark then?

Trademark infringement is all about context. Pirate Joe's for a place that sells pirate costumes isn't trademark infringement. Pirate Joe's in the same font that Trader Joe's uses, for a store that sells Trader Joe's products is probably crossing the line.

Note that the company was started as Transilvania Trading, and didn't get sued until after it changed its name to Pirate Joe's. Moreover, he added the disclaimer "Unauthorized, Unaffiliated and Unafraid" after the lawsuit was filed. Trader Joe's had a very legitimate trademark infringement case, especially during the period where the store was called "Pirate Joe's" with no disclaimer.

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

#236

Post by Profragile »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #203
lsiebert wrote: post #180

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…

So it's okay to mimic stores, down to riding on their trademark? It's probably best to think of "What if someone cloned my favorite game and called it a slightly different name?" People had big problems with what Zynga was doing.

Would you have a problem though if they paid you what you ask for for every sale they made? That is what Pirate Joe's was doing.

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

#237

Post by keithpeter »

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…

I'm a little unclear as to why Trader Joe's did not simply negotiate a franchise with the chap running Pirate Joe's - strikes me as a cheap way to set up in another country. Better than paying all the legal fees.

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

#238

Post by noonespecial »

anigbrowl wrote: post #213
noonespecial wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because legal departments are not capitalists. They're a kind of ultra-conservative entity motivated entirely by fear/anger of any perceived change. What we have here is a COO/CEO asleep at the wheel. One of the CEOs most important jobs is to watch the legal department for signs they're about to draw the old foot-gun and start playing "this little piggy" with company toes.

No, no, no. Legal departments are fiduciaries and where the law itself is weird (as in trademark protection where companies are virtually forced to sue potential infringers) it's not their responsibility to reform the legal system. https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/02/28/failu... motivated entirely by fear/anger of any perceived change Oh don't be such a baby, that's like saying engineering departments…

It seems no more or less anthropomorphic than to say a corporation is motivated by "greed".

Legal departments are like nervous little dogs who bark at everything. The CEO is the one who has to decide if the potential loss in PR is worth the upside of any given legal action (this case is a good example where it probably wasn't).

The lawyers on staff will do because they can sometimes to justify their jobs (or on retainer will do because billable hours). The CEO has to decide if they should.

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

#239

Post by kobeya »

TommyBombadil wrote: post #16
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…

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.

For one, Costco is a wholesale club. It is specifically designed to sell resealable goods. E.g. buy by the box a good that is individually wrapped for resale. It is the design of Costco and the products they sell are regulatory compliant.

Not so of Pirate Joe's. The Pirate sells goods in Canada that only comply with U.S. market rules (food safety, nutritional markings, etc.).

That's not really the merit of this case, which is more about trademark and branding, but reselling Trader Joe's goods (not meant for resell) in Canada (different market) is hardly comparable to reselling Costco goods (meant for resell) in the U.S. (same market).

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

#240

Post by simonh »

pdonis wrote: post #55
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 of your consumable product? For the initial sale of it, yes. But not after that. See below. > Don't you have a legal right to enter into a contract with your shoppers (i.e. You agree to purchase consumable products for consumption only and not resell them)? You couold put that on your package, but legally, I don't think it would pass muster as a contract…

>statutes have limited what rights a customer can sign away even in a written contract. Which might not make sense,...

Why not? Lots of things are illegal regardless of what people put in contracts. If I contract you to kill me, you'd still go to jail for murder. Lots of things are illegal to sell unless they meet quality standards, regardless of if consumers know about it being sub-standard or not or agree to it.

Society has decided it just doesn't want to have to deal with that kind of crap and it's annoying consequences for everybody else. I'm against the general principle of hundreds page EUAL fine print being enforceable. If the industry wants that sort of thing, they should agree some set standard contracts vetted by the government that meet specified standards of service and consumer rights. We shouldn't have to deal with obscure and impenetrable special exceptions to everything all the time.

Post reply on HN