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

241–250 of 283 posts

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

#241

Post by usrusr »

lolsal wrote: post #181
rfdub wrote: post #76

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-writt…

Not exploiting an opportunity waives rights? How does that make sense?

It protects the world from submarine brands.

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

#243

Post by Neliquat »

FireBeyond wrote: post #192
ams6110 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

And he would have been free to refuse the guy based on his bad mustache, but he chose to state it was an anti gay thing thereby making it illegal. You can still be discriminating in customers as long as it is not systematic or targeted aganist a protected class. Which is odd, because if you are black in Mi, your insurance claims don't ever go through, yet nothing is done dispite 20 years of knowing it happens.

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

#244

Post by will_brown »

rayiner wrote: post #235
chii wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "…

There is also additional case law that supports TJ claim from a trademark perspective:

1. TJ would argue PJ was selling watered down product bearing the TJ mark (I know a seemly strange arguement bc PJ was buying selling TJ product without alteration);

2. However, Inherent in all the value of all TJ products are: a) The TJ guarantee of product (i.e. TJ will replace any product you bought at TJ without question/receipt) and b) TJ customer services is part of the TJ product value bc TJ product is sold exclusively thru TJ which they control completely.

3. Therefore, without the guarantee and customer service the TJ product PJ sells is "materially different" than the TJ product TJ sells. (Before others go crazy about this point, this is not my position, it's case law, both warranties/customer service can be qualities of trademark products that remove them from first sale doctrine protections);

4. Tying this into the standard of trademark law, TJ can likely prove customers were confused and bought TJ product from PJ thinking it was TJ product, when in fact it was "materially different" product with the TJ mark.plus it doesn't help PJ advertises they sell TJ product.

5. Further by selling Product with the TJ mark not backed by the TJ guarantee dilutes the TJ mark and goodwill associated with the mark.

Trademark is definitely tricky, there are always questions of facts (I.e. Was there customer confusion in the marketplace) and so they are always ripe for trial. That said I agree with you TJ likely had a good trademark case supported by case law...unfortunately HN likes to try to make absolutes out of law and so when they hear one week about "first sale doctrine" the next they believe in absolute ownership and absolute rights to resell notwithstanding common knowledge to the contrary (they know there is no absolute right to resell rx; alcohol; guns; etc...)

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

#245

Post by will_brown »

milesvp wrote: post #117
will_brown wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is false. The first sale doctrine can be summarized as, once I have physical possession of an item I can resell it. Do not confuse issues around distributorships, which are contracts that say, I will agree to sell you these goods at wholesale prices so long as you agree not to sell them anywhere I say you can't. Your example with reselling prescription opiates, is that opiates are a controlled substance, food is…

>Trademark would only be a problem here if what Pirate Joes was selling was counterfeit Trader Joe's goods.

That is wrong, according to the case law. Facts here are very different bc TJ product is backed by the TJ guarantee; therefore, although identical TJ product when PJ sells it, it is "materially different" because PJ doesn't back the TJ product. That material change is a trademark violation, especially where PJ is advertising they buy/resell TJ product (impossible and confusing to customers).

Simply look up the case law when first sale doctrine does not apply as a result of material changes to the product because the change in warranty/customer service inherently tied to the product/brand.

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

#246

Post by jack1243star »

paulmd wrote: post #202
Spooky23 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You do have a right to go after Commandermuon Grocery for abusing your trademark. Usually liability traverses the chain of custody. If I give you a bag of chips, that doesn't absolve Frito-Lay of liability for a salmonella contamination issue associated with that lot of chips. Likewise, if I crush the chips and sell the bag to you, it's not Frito-Lay's problem, it's mine. This stuff has been litigated extensively…

Another real-world example is "grey market" cameras. It is very common for camera stores to import cameras from overseas mass retailers in southeast Asia (IIRC Taiwan is a major source) and sell them in the US at a discount. The only limit is that the official Canon/Nikon repair centers know what region a camera was sold in and won't repair a foreign camera without a damned good reason (or a pro photographer rating,…

Interestingly, in Taiwan it is common for camera stores to source cameras from Japan, alongside the official imported version. and the buyers can trade official warranty for a discount.

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

#247

Post by psyc »

rayiner wrote: post #222
mattnewton wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he ran out of money. Justice wasn't found, they just bullied him with lawyers.

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…

I don't see any resemblance between the fonts.

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

#248

Post by psyc »

will_brown wrote: post #245
milesvp wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is false. The first sale doctrine can be summarized as, once I have physical possession of an item I can resell it. Do not confuse issues around distributorships, which are contracts that say, I will agree to sell you these goods at wholesale prices so long as you agree not to sell them anywhere I say you can't. Your example with reselling prescription opiates, is that opiates are a controlled substance, food is…

>Trademark would only be a problem here if what Pirate Joes was selling was counterfeit Trader Joe's goods. That is wrong, according to the case law. Facts here are very different bc TJ product is backed by the TJ guarantee; therefore, although identical TJ product when PJ sells it, it is "materially different" because PJ doesn't back the TJ product. That material change is a trademark violation, especially where PJ…

Seems quite a stretch to include the store's return policy in the identity of the "product".

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

#249

Post by ci5er »

SeeDave wrote: post #133

Pardon my ignorance, but... why would Trader Joe's have a problem with their products being resold in Canada if they don't have a presence there? Does their parent company have a competing brand that sales are being cannibalized from? From my perspective: every product sold in Canada was purchased in the U.S. so... if anything, this Pirate Joe fellow has provided additional sales for Trader Joes and proved that there…

1) Liability

2) Brand Dilution

3) Trademark Protection

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

#250

Post by Trundle »

fivestar wrote: post #22
kefka wrote: post #5

Gotta love capitalism, eh? Just like votes, more money = more protection. This certainly wasn't a trademark issue. Trader vs Pirate. There was no question this store wasn't run by Trader Joes/Aldi North. They were buying in bulk to stock a store where they couldn't normally get the goods. Reselling should be 100% A-OK. Any trademarks go along with the products. And as far as I would guess, the grocer certainly wasn't…

This has little to do with capitalism. More like the corporo-fascist police state we inhabit. In capitalism, Pirate Joe's could open up right next door to Trader Joe's and charge whatever prices they like for the products purchased next door.

In free market land Trader Joe's would have been able to prevent the resale to Pirate Joe's in the first place.
Post reply on HN