Trader Joe’s appeals loss in trademark lawsuit against union

trader joe’s Asks federal appeals court to reverse judge’s scathing remarks dismissal Regarding a lawsuit filed by a grocery store chain that claimed that Trademark infringement What the employee union does when selling products on its website.

The appeal, filed Thursday, comes nearly a month after a judge accused Trader Joe’s of “weaponizing the legal system to its advantage in an ongoing labor dispute.” trader joe’s united Union.

The company’s lawyers, Trader Joe’s, and a spokesperson for Trader Joe’s United did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the company’s filing with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The union currently represents employees at two Trader Joe’s stores in Hadley, Massachusetts, and Minneapolis, but is pushing to negotiate on behalf of workers at other stores, but the company I am against this.

Trader Joe’s sued the union in Los Angeles federal court in mid-July last year. The lawsuit alleges that the organization infringed on the company’s trademarks in the production of “union merchandise such as buttons, mugs, T-shirts, and tote bags sold on the union’s website,” and Judge Hernán Vela ruled in January This was pointed out in the dismissal judgment.

The lawsuit was filed six days after the incident. National Labor Relations Board The judge noted that Trader Joe’s had filed a consolidated complaint alleging unfair labor practices, including retaliation, intimidation and other acts against workers.

“Trader Joe’s contends that this is a purely commercial dispute and that the union’s design causes consumer confusion and dilutes the Trader Joe’s family of trademarks,” Vera wrote. .

But Ms. Vella wrote that the lawsuit was “undoubtedly related to an existing labor dispute, and it is hard to believe that the charges would have been filed without the union’s organizing efforts.”

The judge said the case “veers dangerously close to the line of Rule 11,” which could subject lawyers to sanctions if they bring the case for an improper purpose or when the claim is not justified. He said there is.

“The court seeks injunctive relief under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, passed by Congress to relieve courts from the unfortunate task of issuing ostensibly business-related injunctions in pending labor disputes. “We deny Trader Joe’s claims,” ​​the judge wrote.

But Vella didn’t just deny the company’s request to stop the union from selling its products.

Applying trademark law, Vella said, “There is no possibility of confusion caused by the union’s campaign products.”

“The logo used by the union is in a different font, doesn’t utilize the signature fruit basket design, applies concentric circles of different proportions, and a reasonable consumer would think it’s from Trader Joe’s itself. “It applies to products that cannot be confused with other products,” the judge said. I have written.

He also said the fact that consumers can find the product on the union’s website, the only place it is sold, “makes it clear that the product in question is related to Trader Joe’s products. “This minimizes the possibility that the public will mistakenly believe that this is the case.”

“It is simply inconceivable that a reasonable consumer could visit the union’s website, purchase a union-branded coffee mug, and mistakenly believe it was sold at Trader Joe’s,” the judge wrote. said.

The ruling said the union’s online sales of products “arguably” had a very minimal impact on the Trader Joe’s market.

However, “the potential chilling effect and other collateral effects on union members resulting from these lawsuits could be significant,” the judge said.