"Circuit Judge Gabriel Sanchez said the strength of the Trader Joe's name, the chain's own sale of tote bags, and the "strikingly similar" marks featuring the same red color, similar fonts and concentric circles could confuse consumers. "This is not one of the rare trademark infringement cases in which there is no plausible likelihood that a reasonably prudent consumer would be confused," Sanchez wrote."
"Vera called the union's use of the Trader Joe's mark fair use, and accused Trader Joe's of trying to "weaponize the legal system" by suing to gain advantage in a labor dispute. Trader Joe's disagreed, telling the appeals court that federal labor law protects many important union rights including advocacy, organizing and striking, but "selling branded goods in commerce is not one of them.""
"The union countered that no reasonable consumer would be confused by its tote bag, the only product sold by both parties. According to court papers, the Trader Joe's bag featured wine, fruit, cheese and a cutting board. The union bag included a fist holding a box cutter, and the word "union." Trader Joe's is based in Monrovia, California, and has about 600 stores."
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived Trader Joe's trademark lawsuit against Trader Joe's United, reversing a dismissal and returning the case to the district court. The unanimous panel said the grocery chain's strong name, its own sale of tote bags, and "strikingly similar" marks with the same red color, similar fonts and concentric circles could plausibly confuse consumers. The trial judge had found fair use and accused Trader Joe's of attempting to "weaponize the legal system" in a labor dispute. The union argued consumers would not be confused, noting differences in bag imagery and the word "union." Trader Joe's countered that selling branded goods in commerce is not a protected union right under federal labor law.
Read at Fast Company
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]