Union Seeks End of Trader Joe’s Bid to ‘Weaponize’ Trademark Law

A union for some Trader Joe’s employees asked a California federal court to toss a trademark lawsuit it says fits a pattern of suits that “abuse federal trademark law” for leverage in a labor fight.

Trader Joe’s July complaint should be dismissed because a federal labor law known as the Norris-LaGuardia Act bars court injunctions in cases tied to a labor dispute, Trader Joe’s United told the US District Court for the Central District of California on Monday.

It also argued that the union tote bags, apparel, mugs, and other products that Trader Joe’s targeted in its suit aren’t commercial and won’t confuse consumers.

The union’s motion to dismiss, which accuses Trader Joe’s of trying to “weaponize” trademark law, represents a test for trademark lawsuits amid broader labor fights. Courts have routinely sided with unions in similar cases, but legal professionals have said that even a win can hurt a union by diverting money and resources from labor organizing efforts.

The motion says the suit is part of Trader Joe’s broader “retaliatory conduct” over unionization efforts at its stores. The union said even in the company’s “selectively chosen” examples of allegedly infringing products, it’s plain that they are part of a labor dispute and pose no risk of confusing consumers.

Likelihood of Confusion

The union—which formed last year and represents some of the grocery chain’s employees in California, Massachusetts and Minnesota—said the lawsuit fails to plausibly allege likelihood of consumer confusion.

A statement on the Trader Joe’s United website clarifies that it’s a union and not the company, with no mention of grocery sales, the motion says.

Trader Joe’s also didn’t sufficiently address key likelihood of confusion factors, the union said. The emblems on its products differ significantly from Trader Joe’s marks, it said. Trader Joe’s also failed to claim any of the merchandise were goods covered by Trader Joe’s registered marks, admitted it doesn’t use the internet for any sales, and alleges no actual confusion, the motion said.

The motion also said the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibits the injunctive relief sought by Trader Joe’s. The 1932 law says courts lack jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or injunction in cases “involving or growing out of a labor dispute,” with limited exceptions.

Trader Joe’s complaint said the union’s products bearing its name and unique typeface willfully infringe and irreparably harm the company. Unless stopped, they would reduce the distinctiveness of its own marks and hurt goodwill in the brand, the grocer said.

O’Melveny and Myers LLP represents Trader Joe’s. Julien Mirer Singla and Goldstein PLLC and Siegel Yee Brunner and Mehta represent Trader Joe’s United.

The case is Trader Joe’s Co. v. Trader Joes United, C.D. Cal., No. 23-5664, motion to dismiss 8/21/23.