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

271–280 of 283 posts

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

#271

Post by kayone »

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.

I live in Vancouver, I travel a lot to Seattle and San Francisco for work, I used to make sure Trader Joe's was a stop before I head home. After this move I'll try and actively avoid Trader Joe's. If Trader Joe's feels so strongly about Canadians buying their products then I have no reason to give them money. keep in mind I never actually went to the pirate Joe's even though I walked by it frequently.

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

#272

Post by learc83 »

slantyyz wrote: post #267
learc83 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>> consumers might actually be confused by the name Only problem is those consumers are in a different country - one where Trader Joe's does not operate. I would bet Pirate Joe's would have happily closed down if Trader Joe's opened up a store in Vancouver, since that's all the Pirate Joe guy wanted in the first place.

That's true, but trademark is covered by treaty and simply being in another country isn't a defense against violating trademark, and the average consumer doesn't know that Trader Joe's hasn't decided to open a store in Canada.

I'm not arguing that it's necessarily a good thing or that Trader Joe's would have won. I don't think Trader Joe's should have shut him down. But the fact that he called it Pirate Joe's, and setup the store to look like a Trader Joe's (along with carrying Trader Joe's merchandise), means that it wasn't just a nuisance lawsuit. Trader Joe's had a least some chance of winning, and they had a reasonable legal argument.

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

#273

Post by jlarocco »

post_break wrote: post #156
jlarocco wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good job helping ruin it for everybody.

Accidents happen. It doesn't entitle you to a free pay day.

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

#274

Post by mowenz »

ci5er wrote: post #269
mowenz wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>keep him in court until he was broke How many times do we have to hear these kinds of stories of abuse, or patent trolls, or of other unfairness and injustice in the legal system before anything is done about it? I mean the legal system produces some incredible injustices currently: If we get more stories such as billionaires like Jeffrey Epstein raping underage girls and getting a house-arrest with week nights spen…

> How many times do we have to hear these kinds of stories of abuse [...] Well, probably more, if this type of stuff keeps getting conflated with legitimate cases of abuse and trolling. As is ... people are getting frothy about the application of the law as written. What are you mad about? Somebody protecting their trademark? Their direct channel? Their distribution? Their customer guarantees? Their quality assurance…

The legal system did not provide me with computers. This post is confused.

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

#275

Post by slantyyz »

learc83 wrote: post #272
slantyyz wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> consumers might actually be confused by the name Only problem is those consumers are in a different country - one where Trader Joe's does not operate. I would bet Pirate Joe's would have happily closed down if Trader Joe's opened up a store in Vancouver, since that's all the Pirate Joe guy wanted in the first place.

That's true, but trademark is covered by treaty and simply being in another country isn't a defense against violating trademark, and the average consumer doesn't know that Trader Joe's hasn't decided to open a store in Canada. I'm not arguing that it's necessarily a good thing or that Trader Joe's would have won. I don't think Trader Joe's should have shut him down. But the fact that he called it Pirate Joe's, and se…

>> the average consumer doesn't know that Trader Joe's hasn't decided to open a store in Canada.

Honestly, the average consumer in Canada doesn't even know what Trader Joe's is (well they probably do now, since the Pirate Joe's story has made national news here).

I get all of your points about the legal stuff, but I don't think anybody walking into P/Irate Joe's didn't know what was going on. The owner was very transparent about it, and most of the publicity P/Irate Joe's got in the news was about what the store's premise was.

I look at it very simply. You have a super enthusiastic fan in another country who wants people to have access to your products. You can look at it as an opportunity (to find an amicable solution) or as a threat (to be addressed with lawyers).

One approach generates positive goodwill and the other one generates negative goodwill.

Obviously, it's Trader Joe's prerogative to choose which way they wanted to go, but I personally think they missed out on a marketing opportunity to expand their reach.

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

#276

Post by learc83 »

slantyyz wrote: post #275
learc83 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, but trademark is covered by treaty and simply being in another country isn't a defense against violating trademark, and the average consumer doesn't know that Trader Joe's hasn't decided to open a store in Canada. I'm not arguing that it's necessarily a good thing or that Trader Joe's would have won. I don't think Trader Joe's should have shut him down. But the fact that he called it Pirate Joe's, and se…

>> the average consumer doesn't know that Trader Joe's hasn't decided to open a store in Canada. Honestly, the average consumer in Canada doesn't even know what Trader Joe's is (well they probably do now, since the Pirate Joe's story has made national news here). I get all of your points about the legal stuff, but I don't think anybody walking into P/Irate Joe's didn't know what was going on. The owner was very trans…

I agree. It was a stupid move on Trader Joe's part.

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

#277

Post by sslayer »

mowenz wrote: post #205
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…

>keep him in court until he was broke How many times do we have to hear these kinds of stories of abuse, or patent trolls, or of other unfairness and injustice in the legal system before anything is done about it? I mean the legal system produces some incredible injustices currently: If we get more stories such as billionaires like Jeffrey Epstein raping underage girls and getting a house-arrest with week nights spen…

Either you adopt the system, or the system adopts you.

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

#278

Post by kesselvon »

ubernostrum wrote: post #230
TeMPOraL wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem is people typically say "entrepreneur" when they mean "VC-backed vaporware tech startup with no business plan". And as far as I'm aware, it's true that Europe doesn't have as many of those as the US.

thankfully europe hasn't followed the us over the cliff of endless VC money and bad business ideas

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

#279

Post by Chaebixi »

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…

> 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.

I'm aware of that. My point is the purpose of that is solely to prevent confusion in consumers, and two stores with similar trade dress in geographically and jurisdictional separate areas should not cause enough confusion to warrant a legal judgement (especially one by a foreign court).

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

#280

Post by upvotinglurker »

giarc wrote: post #139
hallalex831 wrote: post #83

I'm surprised Trader Joe's hasn't gone to Amazon yet to have all of these listings removed yet... https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3...

Have them removed? They are the seller. >by Trader Joe's

The "by" line in the Amazon listing refers to the manufacturer. The sellers in the linked example have names like "TopPicks" and "South Side Enterprises" (and are probably doing what Pirate Joe did, but without crossing national boundaries, for a customer base of people like me* who live 1.5 hours drive from the nearest TJ's but like the products). TJ doesn't officially sell online.

*I've never actually patronized any of these sellers, but I've been tempted.

Post reply on HN