9 ms·

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 Cap

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.
  - otterley 9y ago
    Real estate is the only type of property I'm aware of that allows the owner to enter into covenants that "run with the property." As of yet, I haven't heard about any exceptions. Software licensors have tried, but so far haven't been successful AFAIK.
    - guelo 9y ago
      The Supreme Court reinforced these doctrines just a week ago (in a patent case, but the same principles apply), ruling against Lexmark printer cartridge restrictions "that a patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose."
  - guelo 9y ago
    First-sale doctrine also applies to trademarks which is what would be at issue here. The doctrine allows reselling of trademarked products.
- will_brown 9y ago
  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 mean they are covered by first-sale doctrine, they are still food stuffs. Trademark under first sale-doctrine is more applicable to reselling a professional sports jersey containing the trademark logo/colors of the team.
  - guelo 9y ago
    The first-sale doctrine does not include an exception for food. Reselling your prescription opiates is prohibited by specific laws. No such law exists for food.
  - Retric 9y ago
    First-sale doctrine is not limited to works of copyright. That's just what's most in the news. Patented inventions for example can be resold or even incorporated into other devices which are then sold and you don't get to control such things.
  - milesvp 9y ago
    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 not. Trademark would only be a problem here if what Pirate Joes was selling was counterfeit Trader Joe's goods. Pirate Joes' core business was perfectly legal in the US. The only way trademark could be a problem is that Pirate Joes might be ruled too close to Trader Joes, and that's the trademark of the business, not the trademark of the items for sale in the store.
    - will_brown 9y ago
pdonis 9y ago
> 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. Even if you got each customer to sign a form agreeing to such a contract, I'm not sure it would stand up in court, because statutes have limited what rights a customer can sign away even in a written contract. Which might not make sense, but lots of things in the law don't make sense. :-) (The usual disclaimer that IANAL applies.)
- simonh 9y ago
  >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.
imgabe 9y ago
> Don't you have a legal right to create exclusive distribution of your consumable product? Not a lawyer but, I'm not sure you do have that right. I know this isn't a copyright issue, but couldn't the same logic of the First Sale Doctrine apply? As a consumer, once I purchase something, it becomes mine and I may do with it as I wish, including reselling it, yes?
- will_brown 9y ago
  Again all I am suggesting is there is a difference between buying/selling a copyrighted work (protected by first sale doctrine) and a private label consumable product that exposes the manufacturer and private labeled to product liability issues.
- rhino369 9y ago
  You have the right by default, but you are allowed to contract the right away (under many circumstances, but probably not all). But lol at Trader Joes trying to you to sign a contract at checkout.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Given that we live in an age where you have to sign away your right to the legal system to get a credit card or a job why not I guess.
_red 9y ago
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.
- will_brown 9y ago
  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.
  - db48x 9y ago
    You are completely correct. Same with some other common products too. You can "own" all the uranium you want, but as soon as you make one little nuke the government gets all up in your face. It's annoying.
  - _red 9y ago
    I completely agree. Also try not paying your property taxes, see how long you own that land. These types of concessions wind up creeping into "free societies" as economic interest buy laws to help create monopolies.
  - macspoofing 9y ago
    Yes. Controlled substances are a grey area.
    - robotresearcher 9y ago
      No they are not. You can't sell them without a government license. Simple.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    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.
metaphorm 9y ago
but you're talking about a hypothetical. the relevant question is has TraderJoes made that contract with their customers or not? The store does not have a membership program (like some retailers do), it is open to the general public for shopping.
FireBeyond 9y ago
"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).
- jandrese 9y ago
  IIRC the "not for resale" markings are only relevant if the package is missing mandatory information like the nutrition label. In practice it only works to stop people who buy a bulk bag of a product and then break it apart and try to resell the individual items.
- ams6110 9y ago
  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.
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    True, "within the realm of current (anti-) discrimination law".
    - Neliquat 9y ago
      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.
jandrese 9y ago
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 condition they're suing over.
- learc83 9y ago
  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.
  - plink 9y ago
    So, they were claiming exclusivity on the descriptor "pirate"?
    - chc 9y ago
      They may have thought it was confusingly similar to the pattern they use for their brands (e.g. Trader Jose's, Baker Josef's). Update: I went and read the actual complaint by Trader Joe's and, though it does mention this, I think this comment may be overly generous to their thought process. The complaint[1], as far as I can tell, was basically that their decor looked kinda like Trader Joe's and they sold Trader Joe's products and this combination is deceptive. [1]: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51fc7d3ce4b05ae014fc86b2/t/526ec3c6e4b0f7bbcf25663c/1382990790673/Trader+Joe%27s+Amended+Complaint.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51fc7d3ce4b05ae014fc8...
  - slantyyz 9y ago
    >> 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.
ppereira 9y ago
You have framed this question in terms of your freedom to contract in order to restrict distribution. Although many think contractual freedom is paramount, that is not necessarily so. It may be bounded by other more basic legal principles. In your chips example, it may be bounded by property and competition law. In property law, there is the concept of a restraint on alienation. In competition/anti-trust law, there is the concept of a post-sale restraint. The idea is simple: after you by the chips, they are yours and you can do with them what you want. Restricting resale also limits competition, which is bad for consumers. Whether this view trumps your freedom to contract is a legal question whose answer has varied over time. Historically, such restraints were a problem for real property in England. An estate might have been held in "fee tail" to be passed on to heirs indefinitely. Society decided that land was not being effectively used in this way, so fee tails were broken by statute beginning in the 1800's. Your freedom to "devise by will" was limited in favor of the property right of alienation. Software was traditionally sold to the end user, who could use or sell the product as he wished, subject to Copyright restrictions on making additional copies for distribution. Only recently did this property-like right erode in favour of the current norm where software is licensed under a plethora of contractual restrictions you may never have read (the EULA).
- ethbro 9y ago
  I see the circumscription of absolute property rights (e.g. right to limit redistribution) as an implicit admission that monopolies or cartels form even in well-functioning free markets. If not, customers would be free to avoid onerous terms by choosing a competitor, thus disincentivizing their use in the market. Instead in our current world, I'm sure we can all think of companies who could easily impose the most draconian TOS restrictions & limitations on rights-after-purchase and yet would still sell approximately the same amount of product. Ergo, we limit these rights by law.
losteverything 9y ago
<"I bought chips at Costco and resold them at a concession stand example". This is the intent of the big stores. Sams club has a limit to 10,000 packs of cigarettes. And rules on resellers, etc.
Spooky23 9y ago
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. There was a few cases around fancy grey-market watches that Costco was buying overseas and selling here at a discount. Costco provided a third party warranty to address that issue, but was allowed to continue. First sale doctrine applies here too.
- paulmd 9y ago
  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, which entails owning a certain number of high-end lenses and so on)
  - jack1243star 9y ago
    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.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
emodendroket 9y ago
Hm, no, I don't think there is a legal right for a business to do something just because they judge that it would be profitable or strategic.
ouid 9y ago
>Don't you have a legal right to create exclusive distribution of your consumable product? Vertical integration is not a de facto right of a company, in general, for anti-trust concerns.
anth1988 9y ago
> 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)? No, you shouldn't have the right to do that. I bought a product, I can sell it if I want to.
nebabyte 9y ago
> Don't you have a legal right to create exclusive distribution of your consumable product? Uhh, counter question. Does such a "right" exist in a free market?
oxguy3 9y ago
From a legal perspective, no, you don't have the right to prevent resale of your products. From a practical perspective though, you can kill resellers by simply entering the same markets as them. They're selling the exact same products as you, but at a significant markup -- you'll put them out of business in no time. Trader Joes' actions here seem to defy their self-interest. Instead of suing Pirate Joe's out of existence, why not offer to buy them? They've already done half the work of marketing your brand and building a storefront -- seems like it'd be a slam dunk to convert Pirate Joe's into a legitimate Trader Joe's location.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

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.
- otterley 9y ago
  Real estate is the only type of property I'm aware of that allows the owner to enter into covenants that "run with the property." As of yet, I haven't heard about any exceptions. Software licensors have tried, but so far haven't been successful AFAIK.
  - guelo 9y ago
    The Supreme Court reinforced these doctrines just a week ago (in a patent case, but the same principles apply), ruling against Lexmark printer cartridge restrictions "that a patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose."
- guelo 9y ago
  First-sale doctrine also applies to trademarks which is what would be at issue here. The doctrine allows reselling of trademarked products.
will_brown 9y ago
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 mean they are covered by first-sale doctrine, they are still food stuffs. Trademark under first sale-doctrine is more applicable to reselling a professional sports jersey containing the trademark logo/colors of the team.
- guelo 9y ago
  The first-sale doctrine does not include an exception for food. Reselling your prescription opiates is prohibited by specific laws. No such law exists for food.
- Retric 9y ago
  First-sale doctrine is not limited to works of copyright. That's just what's most in the news. Patented inventions for example can be resold or even incorporated into other devices which are then sold and you don't get to control such things.
- milesvp 9y ago
  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 not. Trademark would only be a problem here if what Pirate Joes was selling was counterfeit Trader Joe's goods. Pirate Joes' core business was perfectly legal in the US. The only way trademark could be a problem is that Pirate Joes might be ruled too close to Trader Joes, and that's the trademark of the business, not the trademark of the items for sale in the store.
  - will_brown 9y ago

pdonis 9y ago

> 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. Even if you got each customer to sign a form agreeing to such a contract, I'm not sure it would stand up in court, because statutes have limited what rights a customer can sign away even in a written contract. Which might not make sense, but lots of things in the law don't make sense. :-) (The usual disclaimer that IANAL applies.)

simonh 9y ago
>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.

imgabe 9y ago

> Don't you have a legal right to create exclusive distribution of your consumable product? Not a lawyer but, I'm not sure you do have that right. I know this isn't a copyright issue, but couldn't the same logic of the First Sale Doctrine apply? As a consumer, once I purchase something, it becomes mine and I may do with it as I wish, including reselling it, yes?

will_brown 9y ago
Again all I am suggesting is there is a difference between buying/selling a copyrighted work (protected by first sale doctrine) and a private label consumable product that exposes the manufacturer and private labeled to product liability issues.
rhino369 9y ago
You have the right by default, but you are allowed to contract the right away (under many circumstances, but probably not all). But lol at Trader Joes trying to you to sign a contract at checkout.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Given that we live in an age where you have to sign away your right to the legal system to get a credit card or a job why not I guess.

_red 9y ago

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.

will_brown 9y ago
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.
- db48x 9y ago
  You are completely correct. Same with some other common products too. You can "own" all the uranium you want, but as soon as you make one little nuke the government gets all up in your face. It's annoying.
- _red 9y ago
  I completely agree. Also try not paying your property taxes, see how long you own that land. These types of concessions wind up creeping into "free societies" as economic interest buy laws to help create monopolies.
- macspoofing 9y ago
  Yes. Controlled substances are a grey area.
  - robotresearcher 9y ago
    No they are not. You can't sell them without a government license. Simple.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  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.

metaphorm 9y ago

but you're talking about a hypothetical. the relevant question is has TraderJoes made that contract with their customers or not? The store does not have a membership program (like some retailers do), it is open to the general public for shopping.

FireBeyond 9y ago

"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).

jandrese 9y ago
IIRC the "not for resale" markings are only relevant if the package is missing mandatory information like the nutrition label. In practice it only works to stop people who buy a bulk bag of a product and then break it apart and try to resell the individual items.
ams6110 9y ago
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.
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  True, "within the realm of current (anti-) discrimination law".
  - Neliquat 9y ago
    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.

jandrese 9y ago

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 condition they're suing over.

learc83 9y ago
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.
- plink 9y ago
  So, they were claiming exclusivity on the descriptor "pirate"?
  - chc 9y ago
    They may have thought it was confusingly similar to the pattern they use for their brands (e.g. Trader Jose's, Baker Josef's). Update: I went and read the actual complaint by Trader Joe's and, though it does mention this, I think this comment may be overly generous to their thought process. The complaint[1], as far as I can tell, was basically that their decor looked kinda like Trader Joe's and they sold Trader Joe's products and this combination is deceptive. [1]: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51fc7d3ce4b05ae014fc86b2/t/526ec3c6e4b0f7bbcf25663c/1382990790673/Trader+Joe%27s+Amended+Complaint.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51fc7d3ce4b05ae014fc8...
- slantyyz 9y ago
  >> 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.

ppereira 9y ago

You have framed this question in terms of your freedom to contract in order to restrict distribution. Although many think contractual freedom is paramount, that is not necessarily so. It may be bounded by other more basic legal principles. In your chips example, it may be bounded by property and competition law. In property law, there is the concept of a restraint on alienation. In competition/anti-trust law, there is the concept of a post-sale restraint. The idea is simple: after you by the chips, they are yours and you can do with them what you want. Restricting resale also limits competition, which is bad for consumers. Whether this view trumps your freedom to contract is a legal question whose answer has varied over time. Historically, such restraints were a problem for real property in England. An estate might have been held in "fee tail" to be passed on to heirs indefinitely. Society decided that land was not being effectively used in this way, so fee tails were broken by statute beginning in the 1800's. Your freedom to "devise by will" was limited in favor of the property right of alienation. Software was traditionally sold to the end user, who could use or sell the product as he wished, subject to Copyright restrictions on making additional copies for distribution. Only recently did this property-like right erode in favour of the current norm where software is licensed under a plethora of contractual restrictions you may never have read (the EULA).

ethbro 9y ago
I see the circumscription of absolute property rights (e.g. right to limit redistribution) as an implicit admission that monopolies or cartels form even in well-functioning free markets. If not, customers would be free to avoid onerous terms by choosing a competitor, thus disincentivizing their use in the market. Instead in our current world, I'm sure we can all think of companies who could easily impose the most draconian TOS restrictions & limitations on rights-after-purchase and yet would still sell approximately the same amount of product. Ergo, we limit these rights by law.

losteverything 9y ago

<"I bought chips at Costco and resold them at a concession stand example". This is the intent of the big stores. Sams club has a limit to 10,000 packs of cigarettes. And rules on resellers, etc.

Spooky23 9y ago

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. There was a few cases around fancy grey-market watches that Costco was buying overseas and selling here at a discount. Costco provided a third party warranty to address that issue, but was allowed to continue. First sale doctrine applies here too.

paulmd 9y ago
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, which entails owning a certain number of high-end lenses and so on)
- jack1243star 9y ago
  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.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

emodendroket 9y ago

Hm, no, I don't think there is a legal right for a business to do something just because they judge that it would be profitable or strategic.

ouid 9y ago

>Don't you have a legal right to create exclusive distribution of your consumable product? Vertical integration is not a de facto right of a company, in general, for anti-trust concerns.

anth1988 9y ago

> 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)? No, you shouldn't have the right to do that. I bought a product, I can sell it if I want to.

nebabyte 9y ago

> Don't you have a legal right to create exclusive distribution of your consumable product? Uhh, counter question. Does such a "right" exist in a free market?

oxguy3 9y ago

From a legal perspective, no, you don't have the right to prevent resale of your products. From a practical perspective though, you can kill resellers by simply entering the same markets as them. They're selling the exact same products as you, but at a significant markup -- you'll put them out of business in no time. Trader Joes' actions here seem to defy their self-interest. Instead of suing Pirate Joe's out of existence, why not offer to buy them? They've already done half the work of marketing your brand and building a storefront -- seems like it'd be a slam dunk to convert Pirate Joe's into a legitimate Trader Joe's location.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]