7 ms·

Trader Joe's is a privately held company and doesn't franchise (http://www.traderjoes.com/about/general-faq.asp#Franchise http://www.traderjoes.com/about/genera

by cracell 12y ago

Trader Joe's is a privately held company and doesn't franchise (http://www.traderjoes.com/about/general-faq.asp#Franchise http://www.traderjoes.com/about/general-faq.asp#Franchise). Seems like starting to franchise would not necessarily fit with their long term growth goals. I'd assume this is mostly just about brand control. A store selling their products that they don't control will not necessarily have the experience they want for their brand. Even if they can't shut it down, just harassing them can prevent the store from growing very large and causing issues with their brand perception. That said more media coverage around this could paint Trader Joe's as a bully and be more damaging to their brand than an unauthorized seller.

bduerst 12y ago
That's doubtful. If the Girl Scouts started cracking down on cookie resellers, I doubt people would side with the resellers. With the reselling of groceries you run in to quality control issues, where Pirate Joe's can be selling expired Trader Joe's goods and making people sick, which can make Trader Joe's liable for harm.
- scott_karana 12y ago
  > With the reselling of groceries you run in to quality control issues, where Pirate Joe's can be selling expired Trader Joe's goods and making people sick, which can make Trader Joe's liable for harm. Are you sure? After all, if I buy expired Kellogg's cereal from a store and get sick, it's the store I sue, not Kellogg's. Right?...
  - jnem 12y ago
    Agreed, it would be unreasonable to hold a business responsible for what someone else does with their product. I mean, Windows has been crashing PCs for years and I don't see people suing Dell as a result. That would cause so many loophole issues. For example, why sue Dell in that scenario, why not sue IBM for creating the platform in the first place? Or Edison and Tesla's intellectual estates for making electrical devices possible.
- tetrep 12y ago
  >With the reselling of groceries you run in to quality control issues, where Pirate Joe's can be selling expired Trader Joe's goods and making people sick, which can make Trader Joe's liable for harm. Is there any precedence for that? I would love to see a court that put the manufacturer of a product at fault for damage caused by an unauthorized reseller. That would be no different than someone suing a food manufacturer because a grocery store sold their product after it had expired. If you notice in the article, he already needs to create new nutrition labels for all the food to comply with Canadian law. He is clearly already liable for what he's selling, I don't see how Trader Joe's would ever get implicated legally if there were any issues with expired food.
  - VBprogrammer 12y ago
    I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure the fact that Trader Joe's don't have a legal presence in Canada would make legal action against them a bit tricky.
  - foota 12y ago
    I can see where by knowing of Pirate Joe's and not taking action against them, someone could argue that Trader Joe's was authorizing him to resale their products.
    - golemotron 12y ago
      If there's a presumption of authorization by original manufacturers in the sale of all goods, capitalism is broken.
- yew 12y ago
  It's possible that someone might try to hold Trader Joe's liable for the actions of an unaffiliated reseller. I see no legal basis for considering that they would succeed in doing so - even under strict liability, demonstrating that modification of the product was the proximate cause of harm is usually a sufficient defense. I imagine that spoilage in the hands of an unaffiliated reseller would be considered such a modification, but perhaps you're aware of some precedent that I am not?
- orbitur 12y ago
  No, the store would be liable, in Canada.
darkarmani 12y ago
> I'd assume this is mostly just about brand control. A store selling their products that they don't control will not necessarily have the experience they want for their brand. Even if they can't shut it down, just harassing them can prevent the store from growing very large and causing issues with their brand perception. Can't they distance themselves from him and at the same time benefit from selling through him? They'd even have more influence over him if they had a cooperative agreement: ie: don't call himself "Pirate Joe's" and put up a big disclaimer. He wouldn't have to do that, but maybe he would do those things if they gave him a side channel to get goods.
- voxic11 12y ago
  he doesn't call himself pirate joe's that's just the popular nickname, the store's name is Transilvania Trading.
  - xanderstrike 12y ago
    Except that it says "Pirate Joes" in the window and on signage.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - tzs 12y ago
    Then he was very confused when he recorded his voice mail greeting: "Hi you've reached Pirate Joe's we're located at 2348 West 4th Street"
  - jnem 12y ago
    Read carefully. It was originally "Transylvania..." but after he moved locations he changed the name of the store to "Pirate Joe's" (a decision influenced by what WAS the nickname).
mullingitover 12y ago
> That said more media coverage around this could paint Trader Joe's as a bully and be more damaging to their brand than an unauthorized seller. It's certainly damaged their brand in my eyes, and it's not painting them as bullies: they're being bullies. This is a person who's buying a product fairly, taking it to a place where that product doesn't exist, adding a minor markup, and selling it. There's absolutely nothing grey about this practice, it's 100% honest and legal. For Trader Joe's to sue him for doing something that's completely within his rights is beyond loathsome. He's a customer who's buying a huge amount of their products at retail price, they should be sending him thank you letters. I think I might actually stop shopping at Trader Joes over this, as much as it pains me. It's just utterly repugnant behavior on their part.
- Retric 12y ago
  He calls it "Pirate Joes" and resells their products. If nothing else your legally required to defend your trademark or you lose it. They also lose out on quality control issues which could be a major issue. Now their unlikely to win, but by suing and losing they gain some protection. If nothing else if someone get's sick they can say look we tried to stop him but we don't have a choice. On the other hand if they say it's ok that's going to open them to liability.
  - virtue3 12y ago
    "Right to Parody" from wikipedia (USA law but fuck it let's go for it): n Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc[22] the Supreme Court recognized parody as a potential fair use, even when done for profit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody Technically, you could probably do it in the states in a location that trader joe's isn't. Although I'd definitely have a very good lawyer on retainer if I was thinking of that :/
    - ObviousScience 12y ago
      Parody requires that it be a work of art. Are you implying that his buying their products, transporting them, and reselling them is some kind of performance art which is criticizing Trader Joes in some fashion? And that this guy is going to stand in front of a judge and claim he's not in the business of selling merchandise, he's a performer?
golemotron 12y ago
> A store selling their products that they don't control will not necessarily have the experience they want for their brand. Too bad. When you're in business you don't get to control everything about your product. The problem I have with the article is that it is too sympathetic to Trader Joe's position. Even the term "gray market" is loaded. What Pirate is doing is not only legal, there's nothing improprietous about it. I shudder imagining a capitalism where you need permission to resell things that you've bought.

by cracell 12y ago

bduerst 12y ago

That's doubtful. If the Girl Scouts started cracking down on cookie resellers, I doubt people would side with the resellers. With the reselling of groceries you run in to quality control issues, where Pirate Joe's can be selling expired Trader Joe's goods and making people sick, which can make Trader Joe's liable for harm.

scott_karana 12y ago
> With the reselling of groceries you run in to quality control issues, where Pirate Joe's can be selling expired Trader Joe's goods and making people sick, which can make Trader Joe's liable for harm. Are you sure? After all, if I buy expired Kellogg's cereal from a store and get sick, it's the store I sue, not Kellogg's. Right?...
- jnem 12y ago
  Agreed, it would be unreasonable to hold a business responsible for what someone else does with their product. I mean, Windows has been crashing PCs for years and I don't see people suing Dell as a result. That would cause so many loophole issues. For example, why sue Dell in that scenario, why not sue IBM for creating the platform in the first place? Or Edison and Tesla's intellectual estates for making electrical devices possible.
tetrep 12y ago
>With the reselling of groceries you run in to quality control issues, where Pirate Joe's can be selling expired Trader Joe's goods and making people sick, which can make Trader Joe's liable for harm. Is there any precedence for that? I would love to see a court that put the manufacturer of a product at fault for damage caused by an unauthorized reseller. That would be no different than someone suing a food manufacturer because a grocery store sold their product after it had expired. If you notice in the article, he already needs to create new nutrition labels for all the food to comply with Canadian law. He is clearly already liable for what he's selling, I don't see how Trader Joe's would ever get implicated legally if there were any issues with expired food.
- VBprogrammer 12y ago
  I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure the fact that Trader Joe's don't have a legal presence in Canada would make legal action against them a bit tricky.
- foota 12y ago
  I can see where by knowing of Pirate Joe's and not taking action against them, someone could argue that Trader Joe's was authorizing him to resale their products.
  - golemotron 12y ago
    If there's a presumption of authorization by original manufacturers in the sale of all goods, capitalism is broken.
yew 12y ago
It's possible that someone might try to hold Trader Joe's liable for the actions of an unaffiliated reseller. I see no legal basis for considering that they would succeed in doing so - even under strict liability, demonstrating that modification of the product was the proximate cause of harm is usually a sufficient defense. I imagine that spoilage in the hands of an unaffiliated reseller would be considered such a modification, but perhaps you're aware of some precedent that I am not?
orbitur 12y ago
No, the store would be liable, in Canada.

darkarmani 12y ago

> I'd assume this is mostly just about brand control. A store selling their products that they don't control will not necessarily have the experience they want for their brand. Even if they can't shut it down, just harassing them can prevent the store from growing very large and causing issues with their brand perception. Can't they distance themselves from him and at the same time benefit from selling through him? They'd even have more influence over him if they had a cooperative agreement: ie: don't call himself "Pirate Joe's" and put up a big disclaimer. He wouldn't have to do that, but maybe he would do those things if they gave him a side channel to get goods.

voxic11 12y ago
he doesn't call himself pirate joe's that's just the popular nickname, the store's name is Transilvania Trading.
- xanderstrike 12y ago
  Except that it says "Pirate Joes" in the window and on signage.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 12y ago
  Then he was very confused when he recorded his voice mail greeting: "Hi you've reached Pirate Joe's we're located at 2348 West 4th Street"
- jnem 12y ago
  Read carefully. It was originally "Transylvania..." but after he moved locations he changed the name of the store to "Pirate Joe's" (a decision influenced by what WAS the nickname).

mullingitover 12y ago

> That said more media coverage around this could paint Trader Joe's as a bully and be more damaging to their brand than an unauthorized seller. It's certainly damaged their brand in my eyes, and it's not painting them as bullies: they're being bullies. This is a person who's buying a product fairly, taking it to a place where that product doesn't exist, adding a minor markup, and selling it. There's absolutely nothing grey about this practice, it's 100% honest and legal. For Trader Joe's to sue him for doing something that's completely within his rights is beyond loathsome. He's a customer who's buying a huge amount of their products at retail price, they should be sending him thank you letters. I think I might actually stop shopping at Trader Joes over this, as much as it pains me. It's just utterly repugnant behavior on their part.

Retric 12y ago
He calls it "Pirate Joes" and resells their products. If nothing else your legally required to defend your trademark or you lose it. They also lose out on quality control issues which could be a major issue. Now their unlikely to win, but by suing and losing they gain some protection. If nothing else if someone get's sick they can say look we tried to stop him but we don't have a choice. On the other hand if they say it's ok that's going to open them to liability.
- virtue3 12y ago
  "Right to Parody" from wikipedia (USA law but fuck it let's go for it): n Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc[22] the Supreme Court recognized parody as a potential fair use, even when done for profit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody Technically, you could probably do it in the states in a location that trader joe's isn't. Although I'd definitely have a very good lawyer on retainer if I was thinking of that :/
  - ObviousScience 12y ago
    Parody requires that it be a work of art. Are you implying that his buying their products, transporting them, and reselling them is some kind of performance art which is criticizing Trader Joes in some fashion? And that this guy is going to stand in front of a judge and claim he's not in the business of selling merchandise, he's a performer?

golemotron 12y ago

> A store selling their products that they don't control will not necessarily have the experience they want for their brand. Too bad. When you're in business you don't get to control everything about your product. The problem I have with the article is that it is too sympathetic to Trader Joe's position. Even the term "gray market" is loaded. What Pirate is doing is not only legal, there's nothing improprietous about it. I shudder imagining a capitalism where you need permission to resell things that you've bought.