Joe Raedle | News Getty Images | Getty Images
Trader Joe’s is asking a federal appeals court to overturn the judge’s scathing ruling dismissal of the grocery chain company lawsuit he supported trademark infringement by a labor union for selling merchandise on its website.
The appeal, filed Thursday, comes nearly a month after a judge accused Trader Joe’s of trying to “weaponize the legal system to gain an advantage in an ongoing labor dispute” against it Trader Joe’s United join.
Trader Joe’s, an attorney for the company and a spokesman for Trader Joe’s United did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the company’s filing with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The union, which currently represents Trader Joe’s employees at two stores in Hadley, Mass., and Minneapolis, is pushing to bargain and represent employees at other stores, which the company opposes.
Trader Joe’s sued the union in mid-July of last year in federal court in Los Angeles. The suit alleged the group had infringed on the company’s trademarks by producing “union merchandise such as buttons, mugs, T-shirts and bags sold on the Union’s website,” Judge Hernan Vera noted in his dismissal in January.
The Trader Joe’s Union logo is depicted on pins.
The lawsuit was filed six days after the National Labor Relations Board issued a consolidated complaint against Trader Joe’s alleging unfair labor practices, including retaliation against employees, threats and other acts, the judge noted.
“Trader Joe’s argues that this is a purely commercial dispute and that the Union’s plans are confusing consumers and diminishing the Trader Joe’s family of brands,” Vera wrote.
But Vera wrote that the lawsuit “undoubtedly relates to an existing labor dispute and strains credulity to believe” that the complaint would have been filed without the union’s organizing efforts.
The judge wrote that the lawsuit “walks dangerously close to the Rule 11 line,” which can lead to penalties for lawyers if they file lawsuits for an improper purpose or without justifiable claims.
“The Court denies Trader Joe’s request for injunctive relief under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which was enacted by Congress precisely to distract the courts from the unfortunate business of granting ostensibly business injunctive relief in pending labor disputes,” the judge wrote .
But Vera went further than simply denying the company’s request for an injunction to stop the union from selling the merchandise.
Applying trademark law, Vera said “there is no likelihood of confusion from the Union’s campaign-related products.”
“The logos used by the Union are in a different font, do not use the distinctive fruit basket design, apply concentric rings of different proportions, and are applied to products that no reasonable consumer could mistake as being from Trader Joe’s itself.” , the judge wrote.
The Trader Joe’s Union logo
Trader Joe’s
He also said that the fact that consumers would find the merchandise for sale on the association’s website — the only place where they are sold — “minimizes the possibility that the public will mistakenly believe that the products at issue are related” to Trader Joe’s products.
“It is not reasonable to imagine a reasonable consumer going to Union’s website, purchasing a Union-branded coffee mug, and mistakenly believing it to be sold by Trader Joe’s,” the judge wrote.
The decision said the impact of the union’s online merchandise sales on the Trader Joe’s market is “undoubtedly” very small.
But “the potential chilling effect and other collateral effects on union members resulting from these lawsuits may be significant,” the judge wrote.