Hacker News Reader

Comment by chx | Hacker News Reader

Let's review one of the court documents because it has a very important detail. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/26/1...

> Defendant Michael Norman Hallatt purchased Trader Joe’s-branded goods in Washington State, transported them to Canada, and resold them there in a store he designed to mimic a Trader Joe’s store. Trader Joe’s sued under the Lanham Act and Washington law.

Repeated later:

> It is uncontested that Defendant Michael Norman Hallatt purchases Trader Joe’s-branded goods in Washington state, transports them to Canada, and resells them there in a store he designed to mimic a Trader Joe’s store.

Emphasis mine and it's a big deal. Trader Joe's would have had a hell of a time bringing a suit if it would be called Hallat's Little Shack and would look like any random grocery store.

View on HN

> 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 extraterritoriality, NAFTA applies, trademarks are recognized across the border.

Oh yeah it would. TJ's has a very defined, distinct, and recognizable 'feel' to its stores which are a part of their brand. If I started a grocery store called Merchant Mike's and all the employees wore Hawaiian shirts, you could bet that TJ would assert its trade dress.

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).

What if they want to open up in Canada and he's messing up their branding by running a sort of half-ass version of their store? It's not trivial for a corporation to get all the permits they need to do their full store model (selling fresh meat, produce etc.). Meantime his activities impact their brand identity. It's very possible that TJs has some rights here under NAFTA; I'm nto sure how that interacts with trademarks and so son but that is the sort of thing that trade agreements are designed to address in the first place.

I've been in Pirate Joe's (several years ago now); I can't imagine anyone thinking it was a legitimate Trader Joe's store - it felt very obviously to be a parody/rip-off. Isn't the main point of trademarks to avoid brand confusion? I doubt people were thinking this was an actual outlet of Trader Joe's - Hallat was always very transparent about his business practices.

I know that many stores have different design on where they places products, but I doubt if that design is covered under copyright or trademark law. There could be fraud claim if he intend to fool a customer, but a store called pirate joe store do have a rather strong message that it isn't the true store.

I'm not sure how anyone could construe that (P)Irate Joe's in their most recent location looked like a real Trader Joe's. It basically consisted of two walls of shelves and one employee at the register compared to a large market.

Sounds more like he was moving them with names like Pirate Joe's, and Irate Joe's at one point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com