4 ms·
>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 he
by will_brown 9y ago
>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.
- psyc 9y agoSeems quite a stretch to include the store's return policy in the identity of the "product".
- will_brown 9y agoSo there is no confusion, I'm not making a arguement out of thin air, this is the case law. Here is a decent article [1]published by the American Bar Association regarding the resale of "genuine" goods (not counterfeit) by unauthorized retailers. Skip to the "warranty policy and unauthorized dealer page" section, then "going to court". Note the exceptions to first sale doctrine include "material changes" to the trademark good, including non physical changes, then does a decent job of listing those changes recorgnized by the courts. [1] https://www.americanbar.org/publications/blt/2014/07/01_payne.html https://www.americanbar.org/publications/blt/2014/07/01_payn... Edit: from article regarding non-physical changes to trademark product, "Perhaps most commonly, differences in warranty protection coverage between authorized and unauthorized sales often lead to trademark infringement"
- psyc 9y agoOh, I'm not surprised at all that it's in the law, like so many other flights of fancy.