Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonny_eh | Hacker News Reader

What's Trader Joe's problem? Isn't this a good thing for them? They should be paying the guy!

What if Pirate Joe's does not handle perishable food properly and makes people sick. This gets reported as "Trader Joe's X is making people sick!" when in fact it was because of Pirate Joe's poor quality control (for example).

I could see that being the case if he was pretending to be Trader Joe's but he's clearly going out of his way with the store name and atmosphere and story telling to indicate what's actually going on.

No because the product is still labelled as Trader Joe's. So when a public health inspector calls you to say, what have you eaten? and you say "Trader Joe's brand X". And they find 15 people with the same symptoms and same food, it is likely that the food will get recalled.

It doesn't really happen that way and blame isn't just a wild guess and who's responsible.

Then they sue the reporter for slander and/or libel. Then the guy who got poisoned sues Pirate Joe.

What if Pirate Joe's becomes very popular and decides to start making its own products?

Good for him I guess? Trader Joe has decided not to enter Canada which is their right, but they have to realize people are allowed to buy their products and sell them back in other countries too.

If he puts Trader Joe's name on it, he's breaking the law. If he puts Pirate Joe's name on it, who cares? I fail to see what this has to do with the price of tea in China, though.

When has losing control of your product & brand been a good thing?

In this case the product is simply being resold with all original labels (plus an added Canadian nutrition label) and there is no effort to hide where it's coming from.

I dunno, ask P&G, Kelloggs, et al.

In general, under the law, you lose control of a physical good (product) the moment you sell it, as the article explains. Your trademark (brand) does indeed have some legal protection, but Pirate Joe's isn't treading in that pool.

This is a Good Thing™ because sellers should never be able to withdraw a product from a consumer's control or have a say in what the consumer is allowed to do with the product once they've bought it. The moment purchase law allows that you get companies adding provisions that purchasers aren't allowed to review a product they've bought or do things like refill a printer cartridge with other ink (witness the DMCA).

None of these consumer protections causes the company to lose control of their brand, and neither does Pirate Joe's.

Its a trademark suit. If you don't defend your trademark, you lose it. They are obliged by the legal system to do this sort of thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com