
Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Products, Shuts Down - artsandsci
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/business/pirate-joes-trader-joes-vancouver.html?_r=0
======
captainmuon
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 is not affiliated, and doesn't misuse their trademarks (impersonate
them), it should be absolutely legal.

A side remark, people often say how great the US / north America is for
entrepreneurs, compared to (continental) Europe where there is a lot of red
tape and regulations. 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. Not even with the old frivolous "we are wrong but you can't afford
the defense" trick. There is just so much legal uncertainty in NA that it
would give me nightmares doing business there.

~~~
will_brown
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.

~~~
jandrese
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.

~~~
mowenz
>keep him in court until he was broke

How many times do we have to hear these kinds of stories of abuse, or patent
trolls, or of other unfairness and injustice in the legal system before
anything is done about it?

I mean the legal system produces some incredible injustices currently: If we
get more stories such as billionaires like Jeffrey Epstein raping underage
girls and getting a house-arrest with week nights spent sleeping in a special
cell, what does that imply for the rest of us?

The 99% of us are burdened with this BS while the 1% take advantage of it.

~~~
ci5er
> How many times do we have to hear these kinds of stories of abuse [...]

Well, probably more, if this type of stuff keeps getting conflated with
legitimate cases of abuse and trolling. As is ... people are getting frothy
about the application of the law as written.

What are you mad about? Somebody protecting their trademark? Their direct
channel? Their distribution? Their customer guarantees? Their quality
assurances?

Yeah - go ahead. Burn it all down. It's not like the system provided you with
the cheap-ass (maybe mobile) computers via which you connect to the Internet
(also cheaply) anyway...

~~~
mowenz
The legal system did not provide me with computers. This post is confused.

------
chx
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...](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/26/14-35035.pdf)

> 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.

~~~
Chaebixi
> 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.

~~~
chx
> 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.

~~~
PatentTroll
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.

------
Noos
Problem is it sounds like he was trying to rely on association to the Trader
Joe's brand to make money, kind of a shadow franchise. That opens up the
problem of brand dilution, and even the most ethical companies have to be
ruthless about that, or they can lose their own brand and all the benefits
they worked to build with it.

He should have realized the need, and done things like match their product mix
with his own brands, work on making the store's own feel, and dampened direct
association to Trader Joe's. He didn't and it bit him in the ass. No sympathy
here.

~~~
Steko
The first thing I thought of was McDowells in _Coming to America_ even though
they weren't reselling McDonald's food and then it turns out that the guy
behind Pirate Joes is (was) planning to open a "Big M" fast food restaurant.

[http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pirate-
joe-s-...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pirate-joe-s-owner-
plans-big-m-fast-food-joint-1.2421233)

------
thefalcon
There's protecting your brand, and then there's whatever the heck it is Trader
Joe's did here, which seems senseless and malevolent.

~~~
TillE
Aldi Nord (owner of TJ) has done such an incredibly poor job of expanding the
Trader Joe's brand outside of the USA. For example, all you get in their
German stores are some random crappy products with the TJ label.

It makes so little sense to go after this tiny company when you're not even
competing in Canada. Which they probably should! I'm sure there's demand in
cities like Toronto for the actual unique products that TJ offers.

~~~
mabbo
There is demand in Toronto. I am sitting in Toronto, and I still crave a lot
of the good stuff I bought there when I lived in Seattle.

I can't believe they opened stores in Germany, but never bothered to open one
in Vancouver, where there was proven demand for their products.

~~~
germanier
There are no Trader Joe's stores in Germany. It was bought in 1979 by the
German family that owns the Aldi Nord chain of discount stores[0]. That German
chain uses the Trader Joe's brand for some American-themed fast food
ingredients, nuts, and sweet ice tea.

[0]: Which is different from the Aldi Süd chain of discount stores which runs
stores under the "Aldi" brand in the US.

------
rfdub
Trader Joes doesn't have a goddamn peg-leg to stand on in this dispute. If
Trader Joes had made any indication whatsoever they were seeking to satisfy
the clearly substantial demand for their products in Vancouver I might better
be able to see their side of the story, but they have done absolutely nothing
to expand into what would be ludicrously lucrative market. I know multiple
people who have sent bloody hand-written letters to Trader Joes begging them
to open a store in Vancouver and yet they would rather spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars fighting a local small-business owner than satisfy the
demand themselves. Regardless of the legality of this situation Trader Joes
has not won the moral high ground.

~~~
culturalzero
Yeah, I just don't understand capitalists that actively fight against
capitalizing on clear opportunities. I would have just opened a store down the
street or something.

~~~
noonespecial
It's because legal departments are not capitalists. They're a kind of ultra-
conservative entity motivated entirely by fear/anger of any perceived change.

What we have here is a COO/CEO asleep at the wheel. One of the CEOs most
important jobs is to watch the legal department for signs they're about to
draw the old foot-gun and start playing "this little piggy" with company toes.

~~~
anigbrowl
No, no, no. Legal departments are fiduciaries and where the law itself is
weird (as in trademark protection where companies are virtually forced to sue
potential infringers) it's not their responsibility to reform the legal
system.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/02/28/failu...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/02/28/failure-
to-enforce-trademarks-if-you-snooze-do-you-lose/#2923830c6c22)

 _motivated entirely by fear /anger of any perceived change_

Oh don't be such a baby, that's like saying engineering departments made up of
social cripples who can't hold a conversation like regular business people.

~~~
valuearb
Just because you can sue, and might win, doesn't mean you should. This was
damaging to the Trader Joes brand. If I was Chief Marketing Officer of Trader
Joes, I'd be demanding the Chief Legal Officer be fired.

Civil courts do not exist outside of the real world. There are consequences to
how you use them.

~~~
anigbrowl
Yes, but failure to defend a trade mark can result in the loss of legal rights
thereto, _even when it 's obvious that the infringement doesn't matter._

Suppose they had shrugged this off and done nothing. Then a year later I, a
rival grocer, open 'Trader Moe's' and open up 50 stores using a very similar
business model to Trader Joe's. TJ sues, and my defense is that 'Pirate Joe's
infringed on their mark and they did nothing, so I assumed they had abandoned
their rights.

 _This is an affirmative defense in trademark law, by statute,_ specifically
15 U.S.C. § 1127 A good summary is at [http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-
instructions/node/248](http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-
instructions/node/248)

Unlike copyright and patents, trademark durations are infinite, but the price
for this is that the owner must aggressively defend any possible infringement
or risk a competitor claiming abandonment.

If you were the Chief Marketing Officer of Trader Joe's and I was the CEO, I'd
fire _you_ for not knowing this.

------
settsu
While this was arguably a legally heavy-handed act on Trader Joe's part, it
also seems like Mr. Hallatt became increasingly bold and antagonistic as his
revenue increased.

I mean, he did change his store name to Pirate Joe’s (from the far more
ambiguous Transilvania Trading) and his actions seem to betray less charitable
motivations than his words would lead you to believe ("This is not a business
I should be doing from a personal profitability standpoint” -
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/21/pirate-joes-
tr...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/21/pirate-joes-trader-joes-
smuggled-canadian-border-vancouver-store.))

That said, seems like Trader Joe's missed an opportunity for a win-win
partnership with someone who had already developed rudimentary logistics to
meet a demonstrated demand. But then it doesn't surprise me based on my 30+
years shopping at Trader Joe's: I would never describe them as innovative,
instead I'd say they are very focused on what they've been doing well for
decades.

------
SeeDave
Pardon my ignorance, but... why would Trader Joe's have a problem with their
products being resold in Canada if they don't have a presence there? Does
their parent company have a competing brand that sales are being cannibalized
from?

From my perspective: every product sold in Canada was purchased in the U.S.
so... if anything, this Pirate Joe fellow has provided additional sales for
Trader Joes and proved that there is demand for Trader Joe's products in
Canada at an incredible 40% markup!

If they're not interested in servicing Canada, would it not be to Trader Joe's
advantage to enter a formal franchising or wholesaling agreement with Pirate
Joe?

There must be more to this story in terms of Trader Joes objectives as opposed
to Pirate Joe's methods or the legal proceedings.

~~~
giarc
I obviously can't comment from Trader Joes perspective, but did work in food
safety for awhile so I can comment from that perspective.

The problem I imagine they have is that someone is selling Trader Joe products
(with their label) after handling it themselves, and often having random
Craiglists employees handle the items. Prior to this, Trader Joe's (or
companies hired by them) are handling the products.

Imagine someone begins tampering with the food items and a few Canadians get
sick or injured. This might prompt a recall of all Trader Joe's cookies, not
just the ones imported into Canada for example. The FDA wouldn't be able to
say that the tampering happened after the products were purchased by Pirate
Joe's. The same argument applies to temperature sensitive products as well.

------
lsiebert
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know that I am qualified to comment on the legal
issues.

I can say that this does make me upset at Trader Joe's, and I will be
considering where else I can spend my money.

They could have worked with this guy, eventually set up a Trader Joe's in
Canada, and then offered to let this guy run it. That would have been better
for their brand, in my view.

I care about what companies do. Costco hires employees and treats them well.
It pays above average, and it hires and keeps on people with disabilities and
injuries, even if they can't do everything someone else can do. It makes me
feel good to shop there. And it's employees are loyal, hard working, happy and
friendly, and they have less pilferage then other stores.

This idea that a company has a duty to be a dick is silly. Companies should
care about their brand, and about being a good corporate citizen.

~~~
sillysaurus3
So it's okay to mimic stores, down to riding on their trademark?

It's probably best to think of "What if someone cloned my favorite game and
called it a slightly different name?" People had big problems with what Zynga
was doing.

~~~
icebraining
When they don't exist in the country, yes. Likewise, if my favorite game had
georestrictions prevents its sale in some countries, I'd have no problem with
Zynga selling clones for those countries.

~~~
sillysaurus3
So make your own game, with your own name. Make your own store with its own
name. Don't try to tread on the name of others. It's unethical.

~~~
icebraining
Claiming that actions are unethical without providing any argument is
unethical.

------
tryitnow
As much as I like to side with the little guy, I think it's pretty fair for an
establishment to restrict whom they sell to (as long as it's not based on a
protected class like race, gender, orientation, etc). Despite being banned
from the store this guy still sought out ways to shop there, so I can't defend
him too enthusiastically.

Then again it kind of annoys me that TJ's just didn't open a damn store in
Canada. And if they don't want to do that then why not just look the other way
while someone else took on the risk of importing their products into another
country?

~~~
blacksmith_tb
But they weren't restricting selling to him (in fact, I am going to guess that
the manager of the store he stocked up at was happy to see the artificial lift
in sales). He didn't sue them for refusing to sell to him, they sued him for
infringing (which he was quite boldly, but in a country they don't actually do
business in, so it seems like a stretch).

------
heynk
I live in Bellingham, WA, which has (I think) the closes TJ's to Vancouver.
The parking lot is already about 50% British Columbia plates, and maybe now
it'll be even more. I certainly welcome more friendly neighbors shopping in
town, but it's a bummer they have to shut down.

~~~
passivepinetree
A previous article on Pirate Joe's
([http://www.piratejoes.ca/legalandpress/2016/1/16/how-
why](http://www.piratejoes.ca/legalandpress/2016/1/16/how-why), also a great
read) mentions that indeed Bellingham has the closest Trader Joe's to
Vancouver.

------
mazameli
Relevant episode of "Reply All" podcast:
[https://gimletmedia.com/episode/pirate-needs-pirate-
season-3...](https://gimletmedia.com/episode/pirate-needs-pirate-
season-3-episode-3/)

~~~
gkoberger
It's Startup, not Reply All. But both are Gimlet!

------
kefka
Gotta love capitalism, eh? Just like votes, more money = more protection.

This certainly wasn't a trademark issue. Trader vs Pirate. There was no
question this store wasn't run by Trader Joes/Aldi North. They were buying in
bulk to stock a store where they couldn't normally get the goods. Reselling
should be 100% A-OK. Any trademarks go along with the products. And as far as
I would guess, the grocer certainly wasn't tampering with anything - if (s)he
was, they'd go out of business quick.

This is just normal SLAPP-style punitive legal actions that a large monied
corporation can do to stop the little guy from doing legal behaviors that they
don't like.

~~~
duozerk
> Just like votes, more money = more protection.

That's what I find strange with the often-seen "well, just vote with your
wallet" argument when a company screws up; it's almost literally the
definition of an oligarchy (IE, more money = more decision power).

~~~
efdee
"Vote with your wallet" means hit them where it hurts, because you don't have
much of an actual vote in a company's behavior. It has nothing to do with
using money to subvert the democratic process.

~~~
leggomylibro
It normalizes the behavior as acceptable. In reality, the aphorism is based on
a ridiculous premise that nobody in their right mind should accept; that money
is the only thing responsible for dictating what is acceptable behavior.

~~~
jandrese
Uh, that's the entire premise behind the free market. Money decides who is
right and who is wrong. The Invisible Hand doesn't have morals.

~~~
kefka
> Uh, that's the entire premise behind the free market. Money decides who is
> right and who is wrong. The Invisible Hand doesn't have morals.

Yeah, free market. Like "I have more money, and I dont like your face, so I
nuisance sue you until you're bankrupt." free market?

That's not a world I want to be part of, continue, or assist in any way.

------
bbarn
Trader Joe's is a masterclass example in branding.

The only reason anyone's surprised or outrage is that the store feels like a
small, homey, good natured place full of organic this and that that's lower
priced than you'd expect. That might have been true, 40 years ago. For a store
that had the same name, but was a different entity entirely.

Trader Joe's now is just a giant marketing and packaging front for 70 billion
dollar a year Aldi, a multinational chain. It's a corporation. None of this
behavior surprises me at all.

------
joncp
I'm not clear on how US courts were allowed to hear a case about events in
Canada. Is that a thing?

~~~
sp332
A court said that since the "harm" (devaluing the trademark) happened in
America, the case could move ahead.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/court-infringement-
law...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/court-infringement-lawsuit-
trader-joes-pirate-
joes.html?action=click&contentCollection=Business%20Day&module=RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article)

~~~
fivestar
It seems like after you buy something at point of sale whatever you do with it
is fair game. I can buy Coke from Sam's Club or Costco and sell it in my
restaurant. How is what Pirate Joe's did any different?

~~~
sp332
This is a trademark infringement case. The (alleged) problem is that he set up
a store which billed itself as being basically a Trader Joe's.

~~~
ska
Except he didn't. It was always clear what he was doing.

This is pretty straightforward legal bullying, in my opinion.

~~~
hinfaits
The guy clearly tried to position himself as a pseudo-Trader Joe's though. He
called it Pirate Joes and only sold products from Trader Joe's. It seems like
everyone thought of it as a kind of Trader Joe's.

Even though copyright infringement might not have been his intent, intent
doesn't matter. That said, this does look like egregious legal bullying even
if the case holds water.

IANAL

~~~
mthoms
> It seems like everyone thought of it as a kind of Trader Joe's.

FWIW, I live 4 blocks from Pirate Joes and can tell you that no-one thought of
it "as a kind of Trader Joe's".

Okay, maybe there are a few uninformed people but it's still a very long way
from "everyone".

~~~
hinfaits
What did you think of it as? In my mind, this store is in no way associated
with Trader Joe's, but sells exclusively Trader Joe's products (I've only been
in it once); that made it into a kind of Trader Joe's.

I think this debate is more about how one can define "kind of Trader Joe's"
than about how one associated it with the company.

------
echlebek
That's really too bad. Pirate Joe's fit nicely into our cultural tradition of
thumbing our noses at the Americans.

------
hallalex831
I'm surprised Trader Joe's hasn't gone to Amazon yet to have all of these
listings removed yet... [https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-
alias%3...](https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-
alias%3Daps&field-keywords=trader+joes)

~~~
giarc
Have them removed? They are the seller.

>by Trader Joe's

~~~
upvotinglurker
The "by" line in the Amazon listing refers to the manufacturer. The sellers in
the linked example have names like "TopPicks" and "South Side Enterprises"
(and are probably doing what Pirate Joe did, but without crossing national
boundaries, for a customer base of people like me* who live 1.5 hours drive
from the nearest TJ's but like the products). TJ doesn't officially sell
online.

*I've never actually patronized any of these sellers, but I've been tempted.

------
sailfast
Assuming that taking care of customs duties and other food quality issues
legally would not be that expensive, all I'm seeing is missed revenue.

If the person wants to order 10,000 palettes of cookies at retail price, why
wouldn't you sell the cookies to the person? He's not stealing from the back
of the store, he's paying full price. I'm very confused why Trader Joe's would
not have created a direct connection with the guy.

This reminds me of major services cutting off API access because they thought
they could do it better in-house. Just HIRE the person doing your own service
better in a different way.

------
chaostheory
Is Trader Joe's that much better than anything else Canada has to offer?

~~~
goodcanadian
Trader Joe's is different from other stores, not necessarily better or worse.
When I lived in California, we did a lot of shopping at Trader Joe's, but you
couldn't really get all of your groceries there. Conversely, you could not get
equivalents to a lot of Trader Joe's products at other stores. Canada has
grocery stores that are 100% equivalent to regular grocery stores in the U.S.,
but it has nothing that is really equivalent to Trader Joe's.

~~~
anigbrowl
Traditionally _groceries_ refers to foodstuffs only. Hence the creation of the
word _supermarket_ where groceries, household good and other things things
were all sold under one roof. TJs carries a few personal care items like
toothbrushes and soap but they're probably only about 2% of the shelf space in
a store. They're in the food business, that's it.

~~~
goodcanadian
When I said "groceries," I was referring to food. I wouldn't be happy having
to buy 100% of my food at Trader Joe's.

------
Simulacra
This story has always baffled me and I've never really understood where Trader
Joe's comes from on this. It seems like business opportunity exists, but
they're either really full of themselves, or have some other tacit reason for
avoiding the Canadian market. I just don't get it, and I don't like how Trader
Joe's has behaved here. Right or wrong, as a consumer, I disagree, and I'm
putting this down as another reason to never go to a Trader Joe's again.

------
pthreads
"At one point, Mr. Hallatt dropped the “P” from his store sign so it read
“Irate Joe’s” — a signal of his determination to fight the grocery chain."

Hilarious!!!

------
nfriedly
That's too bad. I loved it when they took the "P" out of their sine after
Trader Joe's sued them! ("Irate Joe's")

------
debacle
Makes sense. If it was called Pirate Pete's I would understand. The same thing
happened with South Butt, which was a weaker case in my opinion.

------
dawnerd
So if Trader Joes is so concerned why don't they just open up shop in Canada?
I've heard the podcast about it and original articles way back and it's
amazing they're shutting out a market that seems to be very welcoming.

Maybe they see Target Canada failure and are scared away by that?

------
stevewillows
It's sad to see Pirate Joes go away. I don't know anyone who shopped there on
a regular basis, but I do think TJ would do well in that neighborhood.

The main draw to Trader Joe's is that its part of the journey across the line.
This week I'll be doing this same old routine -- pick up some packages at the
mail place ($2 per package), hit up a few grocery stores for different hot
sauces and staples (including condensed milk in a squeeze tube), have lunch in
Bellingham, go for a walk around Fairhaven, then return home.

Trader Joe's is part of that journey, much like Target (who had a massive,
depressing attempt to break into Canada). Strip away that special-trip aspect,
and all you really have is another grocery store with a few exceptional items.

------
CodeWriter23
Well, that's one way to deal with a guy who has spent the money proving the
market for your product line. I think a better move would have been to take a
page from Dave Thomas' (Wendy's) play book and open a Trader Joe's down the
street.

------
halfnibble
Trader Joe's doesn't want customers who spend a ton of money buying in bulk at
full retail price. Furthermore, they clearly have no intention of expanding
into a large market that desperately wants them. What kind of business is
this?

~~~
slantyyz
TJ's clearly had a opportunity - there's pent up demand for TJ products in
Canada, but instead of investing in a couple of satellite stores in Canada and
some bilingual labeling, they chose to spend their money on lawyers and
lawsuits.

------
rdl
I generally load up a few Amazon Fresh disposable coolers with TJ products as
gifts for friends in Vancouver whenever I drive up -- Kerrygold butter is
really hard to get in Canada, and has much better omega 3 ratio than grain fed
butter.

------
valuearb
He spent so much time and effort creating and running the store and fighting
this. I mean, paying $20/hour for people to shop Trader Joes to get him goods
at retail? That's so incredibly inefficient.

Why didn't he just create his own store with his own brand and mimic the
Trader Joes products and aesthetic? He could buy goods in bulk at much lower
prices. He doesn't have to worry (much) about legal issues or spend money on
them.

Clearly demand was so high he could still get away with charging very high
prices.

------
20150327ASG
I have just lost my appetite for Trader Joe's products.

------
beatpanda
>>For one trip, he hired a couple who he said did not look like conventional
Trader Joe’s shoppers. They had dreadlocks, tattoos and piercings. “They
looked like they just walked off the set of a Burning Man documentary,” he
said.

I'm sorry? Trader Joes, in at least 4 locations I've seen in California, does
special signs and displays the week before Burning Man to market to Burners.
Where is this writer from?

~~~
kinkrtyavimoodh
This was in Northern Washington, close to the Canadian border, and more than
1000 miles away from Burning Man.

------
grizzles
If I lived in Vancouver I would have an irresistible urge to start a
Swashbuckler Joe's right now. If only for the mischief of it.

~~~
glonq
I'd do "Traitor Joe's"

------
ryanSrich
Does anyone else feel like he didn't raise the money because he didn't use a
sensible crowd funding site like GoFundMe?

------
miiiiiike
The StartUp Podcast tagged along with him a few years ago:
[https://gimletmedia.com/episode/pirate-needs-pirate-
season-3...](https://gimletmedia.com/episode/pirate-needs-pirate-
season-3-episode-3/)

------
Shorel
He could have started to make his own products in this time, and slowly
replacing the Trader Joe's ones with his own.

Right now he would simply stop buying the other products while having his own
brand.

------
Mankhool
I live in Pirate Joe's neighbourhood. He's not running a Costco sized
operation. It's a tiny little store. I wish I had 50K to fund his defense.

------
jliptzin
Lawsuit aside, what was this guy thinking. What an awful business model.

------
massung
I'm looking at this as though Trader Joe's was a different company... say
Disney. Disney goes to great lengths to work out how its products are used,
packaged and distributed to not only maximize profits, but also to maintain a
certain image.

If I go to DisneyWorld, purchase a Mickey Mouse doll, an take it home. I have
the right to do with that doll whatever I want: burn it, give it to my
daughter, or resell it at whatever price I see fit.

However, I don't believe I have to right to go - as an agent of another
(presumed competitor), purchase that same doll, and then resell it in my own
store. I have no resell agreement with Disney to do so. In a typical reseller
arrangement, wouldn't a store (e.g. Target) have an agreement with Disney to
purchase bulk product for resell, presumably at a reduced price, but also
under strict guidelines as to how it could do so? For example: cannot be sold
above a certain price, cannot be sold next to adult content, etc.

On a side note: I have to believe that (while not a TJ problem or related to
the lawsuit) there were other issues with what Pirate Joe's was doing related
to imports, possible tariffs not being adhered to, etc.

/IANAL

~~~
dawnerd
Disney is a really bad choice because the Disney resell market is absolutely
massive. Anytime they release limited release items there's a line of people
buying as much as they can just to dump it on ebay.

~~~
massung
I picked it more as an example of a company that goes to great lengths to
maintain its image and quality. And one which I think reasonable people could
understand why they choose to defend that image in court if their products
were used in a way that could damage it.

