On Monday, August 19, 2013 6:08:51 PM UTC-7, FirstPost wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:23:35 -0700, anim8rFSK

wrote:



In article ,

Mason Barge wrote:



On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 16:38:07 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:



In article ,

Mason Barge wrote:



On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 14:10:55 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:



In article

remailer.net,

"Pelosi Inside Trading Co." wrote:



He’s pirating their goods, and they’re trying to make him walk

the plank.



A Canadian entrepreneur is in hot water for buying massive

amounts of Trader Joe's products in Washington state, crossing

the border, and selling the booty at a slight profit.



Mike Hallatt — who calls his vagabond Vancouver store "Pirate

Joe's" — claims he's done nothing wrong, and is helping bring

Trader Joe's to the Commonwealth.



"I'm their best customer," he told the San Francisco Chronicle,

adding that he's purchased more than $350,000 worth of Joe-O's,

mango salsa, and other goodies.



But Trader Joe's is suing the 53-year-old Canadian plunderer,

saying Hallatt has harmed their business and infringed on their

copyright, and is trying to shutter his Vancouver storefront.



How the hell has he infringed on copyright? He hasn't made *any*

copies of anything at all. He purchased physical goods from them

(which then become *his* property) and then resold them.



As for the "Pirate Joe's" store name, that *might* give rise to

a very weak trademark claim, but that's not copyright, either.



Seems like more and more these days, anyone who doesn't like what

someone else is saying or doing just reflexively yells "Copyright!"

whether it applies or not.



It's yer genius journalists at work.



I'd say the trademark case is pretty good, especially since he's

selling Trader Joe products.



Not if he makes it clear that he's not affiliated with Trader Joe's.

Trademark only protects against consumer confusion. It doesn't give the

mark owner exclusive use of the mark in every conceivable circumstance.



Well, his sign copies the Trader Joe's color and font:

http://vancouvermom.ca/wp-content/up...s1-280x250.jpg



I say it goes to the jury, and I think the plaintiff has a shot. This

isn't "every conceivable circumstance" - the guy has set up a Trader

Joe's clone selling Trader Joe's merchandise.



If the guy set up his store in such a way that he made it clear what he

was doing (re-selling purchased merchandise) and that he is no way

affiliated with Trader Joe's, then there's no reasonable consumer

confusion and no trademark violation.



If . . .



I really don't see what Trader Joe's beef is with this. They're selling

merchandise-- lots of it, apparently-- and getting the money for it,

same as if anyone else had bought it. And the guy who's re-selling it

isn't relabeling it or otherwise obscuring the source, so Joe's also

gets some free advertising and free distribution without having to pay

for it.



That was my first thought as well. I am guessing, and it's not

unreasonable if you shop at a TJ''s, that there's a lot of personal

pride in the store brand.



It depends how TJ is set up. If they're franchises, and this guy is

effectively running an illegal unlicensed franchise without paying his

fees, I bet the other franchise holders are livid, and corporate

probably *has* to go after the guy.



The problem corporate likely has is the fact that the guy named his

store "Pirate Joe's". If he had named it anything other than that

calling it "Pirate *anything besides Joe's*" then there probably

wouldn't be any fuss.

There are many companies that do the same thing and never have any

trouble. Stone Oil here in Memphis operates a supply house for the

Mississippi River. When a tugboat calls in and tells them they want

to buy a new TV they go straight to Bestbuy or Wal-Mart or wherever,

pay full retail and then mark it up 50% (double the price). Such

companies have been operating that way for decades.

I see no problem in him call his store Pirate Joe's or Irate Joe's.