Trader Joe’s appeals loss in hallmark claim versus union

Trader Joe’s is asking a federal appeals court to reverse a judge’s scathing termination of the supermarket chain business’s claim that declared hallmark violation by a worker labor union in offering product on its site.

The appeal, submitted Thursday, comes almost a month after the judge implicated Trader Joe’s of attempting to “weaponize the legal system to gain an advantage in an ongoing labor dispute” versus the Trader Joe’s United union.

Trader Joe’s, a legal representative for the business, and a spokesperson for Trader Joe’s United did not instantly react to ask for remark about the business’s filing at the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

The union, which presently represents Trader Joe’s workers at 2 shops in Hadley, Massachusetts, and Minneapolis, is pressing to anticipate and represent workers at other shops, which the business opposes.

Trader Joe’s took legal action against the union in mid-July in 2015 in Los Angeles federal court. The fit declared that the group had actually infringed on the business’s hallmarks in producing “union merchandise such as buttons, mugs, t-shirts, and tote bags sold on the Union’s website,” Judge Hernan Vera kept in mind in his termination judgment in January.

The fit was submitted 6 days after the National Labor Relations Board released a combined problem versus Trader Joe’s that declared unreasonable labor practices, that included striking back versus employees, risks and other acts, the judge kept in mind.

“Trader Joe’s maintains that this is a purely commercial dispute and that the Union’s designs are causing consumer confusion and diluting the Trader Joe’s family of trademarks,” Vera composed.

But Vera composed that the fit “is undoubtedly related to an existing labor dispute, and it strains credulity to believe” that the problem would have been submitted without the union’s arranging efforts.

The judge composed that the fit “comes dangerously close to the line of Rule 11,” which can lead to legal representatives being approved if they submit legal actions for an incorrect function, or without the claims being called for.

“The Court dismisses Trader Joe’s request for injunctive relief under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which was passed by Congress precisely to extract courts from the unfortunate business of issuing ostensibly business-related injunctions in pending labor disputes,” the judge composed.

But Vera went even more than simply rejecting the business’s ask for an injunction to stop the union from offering the product.

Applying hallmark laws, Vera stated there was “no likelihood of confusion posed by the Union’s campaign-related products.”

“The logos used by the Union are in a different font, do not utilize the distinctive fruit basket design, apply concentric rings of different proportions, and are applied to products that no reasonable consumer could confuse as coming from Trader Joe’s itself,” the judge composed.

He likewise stated that the reality that customers would discover the product on sale on the union’s site– the only location where it is offered– “minimizes the likelihood the public will mistakenly assume the goods at issue are related” to Trader Joe’s items.

“It is simply not plausible to imagine a reasonable consumer going to the Union’s website, purchasing a Union-branded coffee mug, and mistakenly believing it to be sold by Trader Joe’s,” the judge composed.

The judgment stated that the effect of online sales of product by the union on Trader Joe’s market is “undoubtedly” really small.

But “the potential chilling effect and other collateral impacts on union members resulting from these lawsuits can be significant,” the judge composed.