[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...

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.

[noonespecial]

It seems no more or less anthropomorphic than to say a corporation is motivated by "greed".

Legal departments are like nervous little dogs who bark at everything. The CEO is the one who has to decide if the potential loss in PR is worth the upside of any given legal action (this case is a good example where it probably wasn't).

The lawyers on staff will do because they can sometimes to justify their jobs (or on retainer will do because billable hours). The CEO has to decide if they should.

[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

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.

[lolsal]

Not exploiting an opportunity waives rights? How does that make sense?

[usrusr]

It protects the world from submarine brands.