The recent reversal of Trader Joe’s trademark claims against the labor union Trader Joe’s United highlights a notable evolution in judicial approach to trademark litigation. Courts are increasingly scrutinizing early dismissals, favoring plaintiffs’ ability to present their arguments before procedural hurdles determine the outcome.
The Case at Hand
In September 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned a lower court’s dismissal of Trader Joe’s trademark claims. The grocery chain argued that the union’s sale of merchandise bearing the name “Trader Joe’s United” could mislead consumers, blurring the distinction between the labor organization and the retail brand. The lower court had dismissed the case, asserting the claims lacked sufficient merit. The appellate court reversed, emphasizing that the issue of consumer confusability - whether buyers would associate the union’s products with the retailer - could not be resolved at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
The decision underscores the judiciary’s growing reluctance to dismiss cases based on speculative or subjective factors. The court noted that the union’s merchandise, featuring red-lettering and designs resembling Trader Joe’s iconic tote bags, could reasonably be perceived as affiliated with the retail brand. While the union contended the name was a fair use to identify its labor organization, the appellate panel found the issue of initial interest confusion - where consumers might be misled at first glance - remained unresolved.
A Broader Judicial Trend
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling aligns with a pattern of appellate courts intervening in early trademark dismissals. In 2018, the same court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a trademark case involving the phrase “Honey Badger Don’t Care,” ruling that fair use claims could not be dismissed without further evidence. Similarly, the Second Circuit in 2013 and the Fifth Circuit in 2006 both reversed dismissals of trademark claims against prominent entities like Oprah Winfrey and Converse, respectively.
This trend has been amplified by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products, which narrowed the scope of the First Amendment-based Rogers defense. This defense, previously used to justify trademark use in expressive works, is now more limited, making early dismissals harder to justify. Courts are now more willing to allow claims to proceed, even if the merits are unclear, as long as the allegations raise plausible questions of fact.
The Role of Equity and Procedural Rigor
The Trader Joe’s case also illustrates how judicial notions of equity influence trademark decisions. The lower court had dismissed the suit and ordered Trader Joe’s to pay over $100,000 in attorneys’ fees, citing the union’s claims as frivolous. However, the appellate court rejected this approach, noting that the union’s arguments - particularly the potential for consumer confusion - required a factual inquiry beyond the motion-to-dismiss stage.
This outcome underscores the tension between expediency and fairness in litigation. Courts are increasingly prioritizing plaintiffs’ ability to present their case fully, even if it means delaying resolution. For defendants, this means procedural missteps - such as failing to assert all applicable defenses - can lead to unfavorable outcomes. In the Trader Joe’s case, the lower court had dismissed the union’s dilution claim based on an affirmative defense the union had not raised, a procedural error the appellate court corrected.
Key Takeaways for Businesses
The Trader Joe’s ruling offers critical lessons for businesses navigating trademark disputes:
- Early Dismissals Are Rare: Courts are less likely to dismiss trademark claims at the motion-to-dismiss stage, especially when the allegations raise genuine questions of fact.
- Procedural Precision Matters: Defendants must assert all relevant defenses, including nominative fair use, to avoid procedural pitfalls. Failure to do so can result in the dismissal of claims without a full merits review.
- Confusability Remains Central: Courts continue to prioritize assessments of consumer confusion, particularly initial interest or post-sale confusion, even if the confusion is temporary.
- Judicial Balance: While courts are leaning toward resolving disputes on their merits, they still require plaintiffs to meet basic pleading standards. This balance ensures that both sides have a fair opportunity to present their case.
IP Defender is here because trademark ownership requires owners to protect their intellectual property from infringement and conflicts and be able to proof owners took care of their trademarks in case of disputes. By monitoring national trademark databases for conflicts and infringements, IP Defender helps businesses stay ahead of potential threats. With coverage in 50+ countries, including the EU, the U.S., and Australia, IP Defender ensures comprehensive protection against rogue registrations and confusable marks.