So what? The mimicry occurs in Canada, where Trader Joe's apparently does not operate. I thought the whole point of trademark law was to prevent customer confusion, not to give a party property-like rights to some retail "style."
I'm really surprised this is an issue for the US courts at all, and that they didn't refer Trader Joe's to the Canadian court system.
> Trade dress is a legal term of art that generally refers to characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging (or even the design of a building) that signify the source of the product to consumers.
IANAL but selling Trading Joe's products and those alone in a store that looks like Trading Joe's could at least give rise to a trade dress claim.
As to extraterritoriality, NAFTA applies, trademarks are recognized across the border.
Oh yeah it would. TJ's has a very defined, distinct, and recognizable 'feel' to its stores which are a part of their brand. If I started a grocery store called Merchant Mike's and all the employees wore Hawaiian shirts, you could bet that TJ would assert its trade dress.
> Trade dress is a legal term of art that generally refers to characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging (or even the design of a building) that signify the source of the product to consumers.
I'm aware of that. My point is the purpose of that is solely to prevent confusion in consumers, and two stores with similar trade dress in geographically and jurisdictional separate areas should not cause enough confusion to warrant a legal judgement (especially one by a foreign court).
What if they want to open up in Canada and he's messing up their branding by running a sort of half-ass version of their store? It's not trivial for a corporation to get all the permits they need to do their full store model (selling fresh meat, produce etc.). Meantime his activities impact their brand identity. It's very possible that TJs has some rights here under NAFTA; I'm nto sure how that interacts with trademarks and so son but that is the sort of thing that trade agreements are designed to address in the first place.
So what? The mimicry occurs in Canada, where Trader Joe's apparently does not operate. I thought the whole point of trademark law was to prevent customer confusion, not to give a party property-like rights to some retail "style."
I'm really surprised this is an issue for the US courts at all, and that they didn't refer Trader Joe's to the Canadian court system.