12 ms·

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

• TommyBombadil 9y ago
  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.
  • slg 9y ago
    I think the difference is the focus on the specific products and their brand. If someone named their candy stand "Silly Wonka" and only sold Nerds and Runts, I am sure they would have Nestle come after them too.
    • fnordfnordfnord 9y ago
      Was Pirate Joe's selling counterfeits or knock offs? I thought they were reselling TJ's products.
    • rhizome 9y ago
      Nestle has the single word "wonka" itself trademarked, so you're going to need a better example.
      • wavefunction 9y ago
        Willy Zonka
  • basseq 9y ago
    Better analogy would be a store called "Smirkland's Signature" that sells Costco-branded products (e.g., Kirkland's Signature).
  • kobeya 9y ago
    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).
• DanBC 9y ago
  > But in my opinion, if I were to do this in Germany there is no way ALDI (whom trader Joe's belongs to iirc) could sue me out of business. They could, and Levi's jeans did it with Tesco who were selling grey market imports. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1261829.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1261829.stm
  • joezydeco 9y ago
    There are two ALDIs in Germany. ALDI Süd operates the American ALDI stores. ALDI Nord owns Trader Joe's.
    • DanBC 9y ago
      That's irrelevant to the point being made, which is that trademark owners have a lot of power over who does or doesn't sell the product, especially if the product is a grey market import.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• rdtsc 9y ago
  > I don't understand with what right trader Joe's can prohibit somebody from reselling their products. I can see this line of reasoning: a lot of products TJ sells are of TJ's brand. If this individual buys the product but then lets it spoil and resells it and makes someone sick, there might be a chance for that end-consumer to sue TJ for it.
  • ams6110 9y ago
    If you're in the business of selling food you are taking that risk no matter what. You have insurance.
• terravion 9y ago
  Not being an expert in the history of the enterprise I read the story as saying that Trader Joe's failed to get legal relief and that Pirate Joe's shut down for other reasons. Trader Joe's was welcome to make life difficult for Pirate Joe's, by refusing to trade, but in the end it was other frictions/owner interest that caused the shut down, not the legal system.
• goodcanadian 9y ago
  It seems pretty clear that they have no right to prohibit reselling. He was being sued on trademark grounds. Personally, I think it is likely he would have won, but he could not afford the legal costs to fight it. He never really made money on the project.
  • jandrese 9y ago
    He had already won the first round in court. He didn't run out of money until the first appeal.
    • goodcanadian 9y ago
      He won an early motion to dismiss. When that dismissal was overturned, it meant that it was going to go to trial. That was what he could not afford.
    • ubernostrum 9y ago
      The court granted a motion on a technical issue of jurisdiction, and an appeals court overturned that decision and sent it back to the original court. That is very different from "he won the first round".
• will_brown 9y ago
  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 a legal right to create exclusive distribution of your consumable product? 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)? Don't you have the legal right to limit your product liability (i.e. If I buy and resell a defective bag of your chips, possibly becoming defective after it left your store, you will be jointly and severally liable for the damages as a result of a products liability lawsuit)? Only playing devils advocate, but I do believe you can play with the facts to highlight the push and pull of contractual rights, ownership/resale rights, and product liability. Also, playing with the facts would highlight how trademark rights/goodwill could be more negatively effected, again something more along the lines of a reseller selling tampered/expired product.
  • Paul-ish 9y ago
    > Don't you have a legal right to create exclusive distribution of your consumable product? IANAL, but the attitudes of judges in US courts seems to go the other way. See the recent inkjet refill lawsuit[1]. The courts appear to prefer the idea that once something is sold, it truly belongs to the person it was sold to. The first sale doctrine in copyright is another example. * https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/30/business/supreme-court-patent-rights-lexmark.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/30/business/supreme-court-pa...
  • guelo 9y ago
    No, the seller does not have any of those rights. It's called the first-sale doctrine.
    • Paul-ish 9y ago
      First-sale doctrine applies to copyrighted works. Deed restrictions are an example where someone can sell property with conditions on its use.
• 801699 9y ago
  "I don't understand with what right..." trademark. he picked the wrong name for his business.
  • jandrese 9y ago
    Trader Joe's doesn't have a trademark in Canada because they don't do business there.
    • 801699 9y ago
      afaik, he was not sued in canada.
      • falsedan 9y ago
        afaik he wasn't trading in the US
        • 801699 9y ago
          but he had assets there and his business required access to a us-based store. one story said he met his wife in the us. if she was a us citizen that could be an addtional reason he might want to be able to travel to the us. in other words, he had reasons to care about potentially having an outstanding judgment against him in the us. or maybe the appeals court date was before he changed the name to pirate joes? to be fair, i am making an assumption when i say he picked th wrong name (original name was transilvania trading): that he did not want to be sued in the us. but maybe he did. does not sound like he had a large legal budget though. there is also the possibility that the name of the business and the other things he did to mimick trader joes had nothing to do with courts reasoning. the fact that he sold goods with a us trademark on the label was enough. in that case maybe the name matters little. but if that is true, then shouldn't we see some changes in the risk profile for all sellers of grey market goods even when the names of their stores bear no resemblance to any us trademark associated with goods they sell. all of the grey market stores i have seen have names that do not mimick any trademarks held by the manufacturers of the goods they sell. but maybe i have not seen enough of them. my opinion is he picked the wrong name. what consumer would think "transilvania trading" was an authorized reseller of trader joes? otoh, "pirate joes"? but what do i know? not much.
• post_break 9y ago
  I buy something from Pirate Joes that is tainted or recalled and get really sick or die. Who do you sue? I can see Trader Joes thinking about that scenario.
  • jlarocco 9y ago
    Isn't this exactly what the OP is talking about? Why would you sue anybody in that situation?
    • post_break 9y ago
      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.
      • jlarocco 9y ago
        Good job helping ruin it for everybody. Accidents happen. It doesn't entitle you to a free pay day.
  • falsedan 9y ago
    Same as if you bought a bad soda at a bodega, or Advil that had been adulterated: the manufacturer, not the retailer.
    • post_break 9y ago
      No, you sue everyone. Everyone who has been involved. Truck driver almost killed Tracy Morgan. Did he sue the trucker? No he sued walmart.
      • nebabyte 9y ago
        Correction: you sue the wealthiest people who can be construed as involved.
    • 9y ago
• tryitnow 9y ago
  I don't think it was about a lack of a reseller agreement. > the company filed a lawsuit against Mr. Hallatt for trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin and false advertising. It was pretty clear the guy was riffing off the TJ brand - there's plenty of legal precedent for that isn't there? Maybe if he had a different name and was selling products from other companies he'd have more of a leg to stand on. And yes, the legal system sucks sometimes, but it seems like this guy was being deliberately provocative (Irate Joe's? I mean you're just begging for a fight now). Bottom line, if you really like fighting with big institutions it's going to cost you money so you either need a really good case (and being deliberately provocative undermines that) or you need deep pockets yourself.
  • icebraining 9y ago
    The purpose of trademark law is to avoid confusion, not to provide some sort of property over words.
• lr4444lr 9y ago
  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 distributors must go through certification and checks on quality in most countries as part of consumer protection laws. Also, I don't know the term for it offhand, (IANAL,) but there's a legal difference between buying a product as a consumer and then disposing of it because you happen not to need it vs. going in and buying in bulk with full intention to resell. There's a kind of implicit agreement when you buy retail.
  • afuchs 9y ago
    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 to buy from the original retailer.
    • lr4444lr 9y ago
      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.
      • 9y ago
• wayn3 9y ago
  lul yea, if you just blatantly resell an aldi brand, they can totally wreck your shit. google cases of people selling as little as 5 items of "esprit" clothing. if you resell brands and youre not an authorized vendor, youre not going to have a lot of fun for a while.
• analog31 9y ago
  Contrary to popular belief, I've read that there are actually more entrepreneurs per capita in Europe than in the US.
  • TeMPOraL 9y ago
    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".
    • ubernostrum 9y ago
      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.
      • kesselvon 9y ago
        thankfully europe hasn't followed the us over the cliff of endless VC money and bad business ideas
  • valuearb 9y ago
    If your employee "protection" laws make it difficult to start and grow small businesses, of course you'll end up with lots more 1-2 person businesses, and can claim you have more "entrepreneurs".
• rayiner 9y ago
  One of the things at issue in his case was whether Pirate Joes was, in fact, not misusing the TJ trademarks, etc. TJ's initial loss had nothing to do with the merits of those claims. The issue was whether the harm had occurred in Canada and whether it affected thei US business. TJs won that issue on appeal and the case was slated to go to trial before the settlement. More generally, TJs has every right to sell to people on specific terms. That's just freedom of contract.
• random3 9y ago
  Looks like there's a dark web opportunity there :)
• keithpeter 9y ago
  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.
  • NotSammyHagar 9y ago
    because they'd want to control everything to do with the new corporation. A successful chain like that tries to make everything right, everything the same across stores. They'd never just let some random guy in his store look like a semi-official reseller. I hate that they ran him out of business. I hate companies that try to enforce the no-resell strategy. It's really another version of the "you can't work on your tractor or phone without my permission" strategy.